A-Rod used steroids: shocked? surprised?

CharlasBaseball

Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.

A-Rod used steroids: shocked? surprised?

Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.

1TeacherDad
Feb 8, 2009, 1:28 am

...or simply sick of the whole damn thing? Now who do we root for to break Bonds' HR record?

2BOB81
Feb 8, 2009, 1:33 am

shocked? surprised?

No.

Steroid Era? Well, looks to me like the Hall of Fame Era is over.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/07/alex-rodriguez-steroids...

3mikevail
Feb 8, 2009, 4:59 pm

Why not just give in and start passing out steroids in the clubhouse. Give them to everyone and put all player on an equal footing. Of course they'll have to move the fences back 40 feet or so...

4findundercan
Feb 9, 2009, 11:40 am

Not really shocking from what we know of A-Rod. Or SI, because the other 103 names were all A-Rod, so there was no need to involve any actual journalism.

5TeacherDad
Feb 9, 2009, 5:42 pm

Well at least he admitted it (hint, hint, Mark) so everything is okay now, right? still on track for the HR record and HOF...

6BOB81
Feb 9, 2009, 10:35 pm

>5 TeacherDad:
But does the admission make his numbers any more "legitamate?"

7krolik
Feb 10, 2009, 3:50 am

It's just another drop in the bucket that raises my disenchantment with the current game. Partly this is the irrational force of nostalgia speaking. (When I grew up, I heard my father talk about Dizzy Dean...and now, I'd rather watch old Bob Gibson highlights than footage of contemporary fat boys hitting the ball over the fence.)

But, the distortions of nostalgia aside, it is a different game now, for better and for worse. Comparative stats to earlier periods matter less than they used to.

The importance of these comparisons was always exaggerated, anyway. Even if they offered a pretty seductive illusion...

8cyderry
Feb 10, 2009, 5:34 pm

My problem with the whole steriod issue is that so kind of adjustment needs to be made to the power numbers of those who used steriods - should they be ignored altogether OR AT LEAST HALVED when you are considering these players for the HOF?, Shoud their other stats still count? A hit is a hit and they still had to make contact with the ball and I can't see where steriods would help you do that. But would they have as many, and how many do you take away? Do you re-calculate their lifetime average by removing a certain percentage of hits, remove the same percentage of lifetime RBIs, how do you calculate the impact of the steriods on their production. Can we go back and say that we are taking away half their homers, so we remove all the RBIs related to those, and then mark their ABs as outs and recacluate the average? Isn't it just better to say, "buddy, you screwed yourself and the game so forget the HOF."

9DromJohn
Feb 10, 2009, 5:53 pm

Saddened by ARod.
Disgusted by Novitzky.

10BOB81
Feb 10, 2009, 10:47 pm

Does anybody really believe that the players of the past wouldn't have used steroids (or cheated in some completely different way) if given the chance? Are the players of today just essentially less virtuous than the players of yesteryear?

11findundercan
Feb 10, 2009, 10:58 pm

You mean like greenies, cocaine, weed, cork, emery boards, vaseline, gambling, and fixing games? Not a chance.

12BOB81
Feb 10, 2009, 11:06 pm

Not to mention telescopes in the outfield and razor-sharp spikes to the shins; if they'd even had the notion . . .

13mingfrommongo
Feb 11, 2009, 1:31 am

I'm beginning to think that questioning the legitimacy of statistics or a player's HOF eligibility is the wrong way to think of the Steroid Era. Statistics are only a part of the rich history of the game. No matter what mathematicians do to the numbers, they cannot fully describe baseball. The stats are what they are; there can be no taking them back. And I wasn't going to pay for admission to the HOF any time soon, anyway. The numbers don't tell us, but we know: this is a dark period in the history of the game we all love. Villains out number the heroes, whom we can't identify anyway. Instead of facing this, some have tried to rationalize the actions of the villains. We end up arguing stupid points about assholes of the past who got into the HOF, or assume that had steroids been available decades ago they would have been embraced then, too. These arguments are specious and unnecessary. Steroids have been bad for baseball. We all know this. The users and their enablers (Gene Orza and Bud Selig chief among them) have been bad for baseball. If your favorite player was one of them, he was bad for baseball. Get over it and pick a new favorite. I hope they all go to jail/hell/hiding in shame. We'll always know what they were no matter their numbers or how pretty their bust in Cooperstown. It has sucked to be a baseball fan lately, and most likely we'll get still more bad news. But it will get better, and soon. Because in less than a week pitchers and catchers report to Goodyear, AZ, and some other, less important places, too. I think I'm done with statistics and talking about the ugliness of the recent past (for a while, anyway). How 'bout that Tribe? Think they got a shot this year?

14BOB81
Editado: Feb 11, 2009, 8:11 am

These arguments are specious and unnecessary.

Why? "Just because?"

15BOB81
Feb 11, 2009, 9:02 am

How 'bout that Tribe?

Steroids cause hair loss.

16findundercan
Feb 11, 2009, 10:25 am

Why do you need to question the statistics at all? The one thing we know for a fact about steroid use is that it has occurred across the league - good players, bad players (though we don't feel indignant about them or feel the need to punish them equally for the same transgressions), pitchers, batters...everybody. So, like every other factor in every other era, we can compare individual stats to the league average. And when we do that, we find that the great steroid users really didn't get that much more of an advantage over the league than the great players of any other era. And life goes on.

17KromesTomes
Feb 11, 2009, 11:59 am

Actually, it would be interesting to see some kind of sabermetric analysis of A-Rod's numbers ... see how far out of line his three steriod years are as compared to the rest of his career ... of course, this assumes he only used while he was in Texas.

One thing that jumped right out at me was that he averaged 162 games per year with the Rangers ... so even if the steroids just helped with his health, this necessarily boosted his number just based on the amount of at bats he got.

18krolik
Feb 11, 2009, 1:32 pm

>17 KromesTomes: Possibly. But I've also heard that McGwire's injuries and down-time could be attributed to steroids. I don't know what's true. Sure, "life goes on" >16 findundercan:, but this beefing up changes the way the game is played. Clearly many fans have preferred this version. Probably I'm in the minority in not liking it as much. It's all part of a more general cultural trend, anyway--like when they remodelled Yankee Stadium and reduced the seating capacity because people's asses were just so much bigger. Any stats on the seat width of the next stadium?

19conceptDawg
Feb 11, 2009, 2:09 pm

The stats game is a hard one to nail down because for many of the players steroids weren't necessarily used to beef up. Pitchers usually use them to recover from injury or fatigue faster. That doesn't mean that their fastball is now faster, it just means that they can pitch on 3 days rest instead of 4. Or their stuff is just a little bit better than it would have been with the same amount of rest. It's all very fuzzy.

Those that used to beef up are another story and I think their stats can be traced a little bit easier but it still isn't a black and white situation.

I think that we are in an era where stats really do matter less than they used to. That's unfortunate because baseball has always prided itself on the fact that it is a game of statistics and that any player could be compared with any other player of the past on general measure. That ability is now gone, clearly.

So baseball must absolutely clean up the rosters or there are even darker days ahead. People do enjoy the long ball but I think that the public will only tolerate so much before turning their back on the sport.

20mingfrommongo
Feb 11, 2009, 7:12 pm

>14 BOB81: Because steroid use is against the law, against the rules of baseball, and cheating. It is indefensible. Since it can't be defended, we get "Everybody was doing it." My mother didn't let me get away with that when I was 5. Trotting out that excuse for the actions of grown men is absurd. Same goes for "I didn't know I was doing something wrong."

>15 BOB81: As for Hafner, he'll continue to put up those post-roids numbers like last year and be gone soon.

>16 findundercan: I do feel indignant, and want to see all the users punished equally. But HOF candidacy can't really be taken away from everyone. And not everyone was on steroids; we'd be comparing apples to oranges unless we knew exactly who was and was not using.

21BOB81
Feb 11, 2009, 7:58 pm

Mark Fainaru-Wada's original source on Bonds broke the law, right? So Fainaru-Wada is, in a way, just another cheater, right? There has always been cheating in baseball, and there always will be. Why is the rule against steroid use uniquely sacrosanct?

22TeacherDad
Feb 11, 2009, 11:15 pm

>21 BOB81: Tthat's been my point all along: it's like being surprised when a politician lies! No, not every single pol fibs, not every player cheats, not every citizen fudges on taxes, but some always have and some always will-- it's the way of the world. That ol' serpent would've injected the apple to boost its appeal if he thought it would help...

And no, that doesn't mean it's okay, it just means we should stop being indignant and looking for ways to adjust stats and erase records. I hope that 300 more names come out soon so we can throw our hands in the air in resignation, then look forward to spring training. Anybody who says they grumbled and complained about dirty players when McGwire set the record, or says A-Rod would not be one of the absolute best of his generation, is lying or simply has no heart.

23findundercan
Feb 11, 2009, 11:27 pm

As usual, on this computer, I only have records through 2005 on some stats. If that doesn't fly with you, please feel free to buy me some more baseball encylopedias. Asterisked seasons are in the admitted steroid years.

A-Rod's best 5 seasons for :

HR :
57 : 2002 *
54 : 2007
52 : 2001 *
48 : 2005
47 : 2003 *

G :
162 : 2001 *, 2002 *, 2005
161 : 2003 *, 1998

OPS+
177 : 2007
173 : 2005
162 : 2000
160 : 2001 *, 1996

RCAA (only through 2005) :
83 : 2005
73 : 2000, 1996
72 : 2001 *
58 : 2002 *

ISO (only through 2005) :
.324 : 2002 *
.304 : 2001 *
.301 : 2003 *, 1999
.289 : 2005

TB :
393 : 2001 *
389 : 2002 *
379 : 1996
376 : 2007
369 : 2005

It looks like there's a bit more power in the steroid years, but it's not a lot whole lot more than his best years pre- and post- steroids. His overall offense is actually better in his best non-steroid years. My guess is that he pressed more to hit the HR and while that helped his power numbers, it hurt his OBP (relatively speaking) versus his other peak years. If there were no mention of steroids, I would probably look at these numbers and see the variations as exactly that - a conscious emphasis on power. Others, of course, will come to different conclusions.

24findundercan
Feb 11, 2009, 11:35 pm

>21 BOB81: & 22

It's worth noting that all of the Fainaru-Wada wrote a book on the subject and Selena Roberts is writing a book on A-Rod. So, they either paid for or solicited what amounts to stolen information and then tried to profit from it. If it were any commodity other than information, that would be called fencing. Now, I'm not against protecting whistle-blowers, rape victims, etc., but there is a limit to the privilege and this is far beyond that limit.

25BOB81
Feb 11, 2009, 11:38 pm

>23 findundercan:
And he played his 2001-2003 home games in a bandbox.

>24 findundercan:
Yes, My Lai this ain't.

26rocketjk
Editado: Feb 12, 2009, 3:04 pm

"Mark Fainaru-Wada's original source on Bonds broke the law, right? So Fainaru-Wada is, in a way, just another cheater, right? There has always been cheating in baseball, and there always will be. Why is the rule against steroid use uniquely sacrosanct?"

In my view, it's not "uniquely sacrosanct." If Fainaru-Wada or his source broke the law, they should be punished appropriately. That doesn't mean I'm going to pretend I don't know the things they revealed or that I'm not going to react to those things. I'm not supposed to care about what Bonds did because I don't like the way the information was revealed? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not "shocked" to learn that A-Rod did steroids, but I was sort of surprised, to tell you the truth. C'est la vie. I think steroids are particularly hideous because they are harmful to your health and therefore forced those players who wanted to stay clean to make a choice between taking steroids anyway or falling behind their cheating colleagues.

Otherwise, I'll go along with what mingfrommongo said in Post #20.

27BOB81
Editado: Feb 13, 2009, 12:01 am

But as I pointed out in the MacGwire thread, amphetamine abuse is also bad for your health; and I'm sure that the players of the 60's and 70's felt pressured to abuse them, so as not to fall behind their peers. I hope people don't think that I'm just fine with steroids, because I'm not: but the cat is out of the bag, and we can't put it back.

But what bothers me a lot more than steroids is the blatant hypocrisy of the Dominant Sports Media, which is disproportionally picking on baseball:

The average NFL offensive lineman weighs 50 pounds more than the average 25 years ago. Apparently they just have much better "Nutrition Programs" now than they did then: eeyeah, sure. I've even heard two mainstream sports radio hosts defending steroid use in football because "the players need them." And weighing 300+ pounds is also, in and of itself, very bad for your health. Young football players are dropping dead left and right, and nobody really cares; least of all the Dominant Sports Media.

A 41 year old woman who would appear to Dr. Shop for husbands is winning Olympic medals, and no one really seems to care about that, either.

Now, why wouldn't I think that I just might be being chumped?

28mingfrommongo
Feb 14, 2009, 12:58 am

Interesting point about the "Dominant Sports Media," probably worth starting another thread. A quick search of ESPN's web site for "steroids" yields 8533 results and the option to refine by sport:

* AFL (24)
* Boxing (168)
* College Basketball (42)
* College Football (73)
* Cycling (93)
* Golf (213)
* Gymnastics (3)
* High School Baseball (1)
* High School Volleyball (1)
* MLB (3601)
* MMA (32)
* NBA (582)
* NFL (1284)
* NHL (223)
* Racing (108)
* Rugby (1)
* Skiing (5)
* Soccer (111)
* Swimming (12)
* Tennis (82)
* Track and Field (13)
* Women's Basketball (53)

It is ESPN, so I'm shocked to see that there are 223 stories about any aspect of the NHL. The recent A-Rod story has inflated the MLB total a bit I'm sure, but three times as many steroids+MLB stories as steroids+NFL seems a bit skewed.

29BOB81
Feb 14, 2009, 7:55 am

And I don't even think the almost 3 to 1 MLB/NFL ratio tells the whole story: when the DMS (sorry, I couldn't resist) get their nicely manicured hands on an NFL steroid story, it has 0 shelf life; simply DOA.

30directory-man
Feb 14, 2009, 10:12 am

Athletes are paid millions to perform and draw fans to spend money. I could only imagine how widespread steroid use was. In fact, it was probably encouraged by many team owners.

Think about it. More home runs = more media coverage. Get close to breaking a record and that is bonus media coverage.

Sports, like most anything in the world, is driven by the desire to profit. And what people will do to make a buck.

31BOB81
Abr 30, 2009, 1:19 pm

Report: A-Rod used with Yankees

I just don't know if I believe her, what with breaking into his house, and all . . .

32KromesTomes
Abr 30, 2009, 2:37 pm

The article from BOB81 (hi, BOB) also says there are allegations that:

"A-Rod "pitch tipped" when he played for the Rangers by letting opponents at the plate know which pitch was coming in lopsided games. A-Rod expected players he helped would reciprocate when he was having an off night and needed to get his batting average up."

IMHO, from a purely baseball standpoing, this is even more inexcusable than the steroids ... seriously. This is like cheating against his own team!

Oh, and regarding the list of steroid stories on ESPN.com, how can they have almost three times as many stories on steroids in golf (213!) than on steroids in college football (73).

33BOB81
Abr 30, 2009, 11:19 pm

Wasn't there something similar in Ball Four, an anecdote about making a deal with the opposing catcher for a .300 season?

34mingfrommongo
mayo 1, 2009, 6:27 pm

>31 BOB81: That's a joke, right?

35BOB81
mayo 1, 2009, 7:29 pm

Ming, A-Rod's obviously been very upright and forthcoming in explaining his semi-accidental steroid use. Why should I believe the mean slanders of some sneaky crazy lady?

36mingfrommongo
mayo 2, 2009, 12:50 pm

semi-accidental steroid use

His story starts "I was in the shower, that's why I was naked..."
And ends with "One-in-a-million-shot, doc!"

37TeacherDad
mayo 2, 2009, 1:47 pm

I've used both of those excuses in my life, one multiple times, how come no one's writing a book about me?

38findundercan
mayo 7, 2009, 1:01 pm

I'm working on one right now, TeacherDad. "Chapter 3 : The Streaking Years"

39BOB81
mayo 7, 2009, 8:55 pm

Este mensaje fue borrado por su autor.

40BOB81
mayo 14, 2009, 11:22 pm

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

"I'm willing to give a guy a second chance..." *laugh track* "When you take steroids you have a direct outcome of the game... That's the integrity of the game. And when you can change records when you do something illegal, it's just not right..."

ROLF: tell me another one, Pete.

41mingfrommongo
mayo 15, 2009, 12:37 pm

Wow, that Pete's a pretty magnanimous guy. I bet he'd be willing to give everyone who's ever sinned against baseball a second chance. What a selfless, compassionate man. Oh, wait...

So, according to Pete Rose: A-Rod's worse that Pete + A-Rod deserves the HOF = Pete deserves the HOF. The logic is valid, but False + False = False.

I'm just surprised it took so long for Mr. Rose to slither out and try this.