OT: Manny Ramirez's numbers.

[SackAttack]

So Orel Hershiser has an article up at ESPN about Manny's drug test, and while it doesn't do a whole lot of railing at him specifically (although he does mention his year as a teammate of Manny's and basically says he thought Manny had an epic work ethic and wouldn't have done that sort of thing, real similar to what Ortiz said of Manny earlier yesterday), the caption underneath a picture of Manny says something like "Manny Ramirez has put up big numbers at the plate, but now they're being questioned."

So I thought, okay. I'll take a look at that.

baseball-reference says Manny's 162-game average is 41 HR, but in terms of actual seasons in which he's played, it's more like 35 per (I've excluded 1993 and 2009 because of small sample sizes).

So, okay. His most prolific year was 1998, when he hit 45 HR for Cleveland. He's hit 40+ five times, doing so in '98, '99, 2001, '04 and '05.

He hit 274 HR in 8 seasons in Boston, 236 HR in 7+ seasons in Cleveland.

He hit .312 for Boston, .313 for Cleveland. .411 OBP for Boston, .407 for Cleveland. .999 OPS in Boston, .998 OPS for Cleveland. Played 116 fewer games in Cleveland, but his third season in baseball was the first in which he played more than 91 games. He probably wouldn't have hit another 38 HR had he played another 110 games in 1993 and another 50 in 1994, but he might have - he hit 17 HR in 91 games in that strike-shortened 1994 season.

Last season, when he was raking for the Dodgers after the trade, folks on the radio out there repeatedly called him one of the best right-handed hitters of his generation, so it was a belief that existed then.

Two things that people frequently point to for PED use are home run production and production sustained into later years because you can push the body harder, for longer. I've already noted the fact that his HR production has been pretty much a metronome over his career - some ups, some downs, but he hit 37 last year, he was on pace for 36 this year, and he's averaged 35 per full-season played (including the '94 strike year) for his whole career. There hasn't been a massive what-the-hell spike like we saw with Bonds, who hit 73 HR at the age of 36. It's mostly been sustained, reliable production, and so the question becomes - is that something that could reasonably be expected of him, given innocence of cheating and 'best-of-his-generation' status?

I thought I'd compare him, HR-wise, with the 16 players ahead of him on the HR list.

1. Barry Bonds 762

162-game average of 41 HR.
season average (at least 91 games played) of 36 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36 (Manny age last season): 233
HR between the ages of 32-37 (extrapolating for comparison at Manny's pace without suspension): 279
number of 40+ HR seasons:

2. Hank Aaron+ 755

162-game average of 37 HR.
season average of 34 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 194
HR between the ages of 32-37: 241
number of 40+ HR seasons: 8

3. Babe Ruth+ 714

162-game average of 46 HR.
season average of 41 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 255
HR between the ages of 32-37: 296
number of 40+ HR seasons: 8

4. Willie Mays+ 660

162-game average of 36 HR.
season average of 34 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 196
HR between the ages of 32-37: 219
number of 40+ HR seasons: 6

5. Ken Griffey (39) 614

162-game average of 39 HR.
season average of 34.5 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 103
HR between the ages of 32-37: 133
number of 40+ HR seasons: 6

6. Sammy Sosa 609

162-game average of 42 HR.
season average of 37 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 202
HR between the ages of 32-37: 223 (DNP at 37, so added his 38 y/o stats)
number of 40+ HR seasons: 7

7. Frank Robinson+ 586

162-game average of 34 HR.
season average of 30 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 119
HR between the ages of 32-37: 149
number of 40+ HR seasons: 1

8. Mark McGwire 583

162-game average of 50 HR.
season average of 41 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 277
HR between the ages of 32-37: 306
number of 40+ HR seasons: 6

9. Harmon Killebrew+ 573

162-game average of 38 HR.
season average of 35 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 161
HR between the ages of 32-37: 166 (Killebrew's 37 y/o season was significantly shorter than his 32-36 years)
number of 40+ HR seasons: 8

10. Rafael Palmeiro 569

162-game average of 33 HR.
season average of 31 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 214
HR between the ages of 32-37: 257
number of 40+ HR seasons: 4

11. Reggie Jackson+ 563

162-game average of 32 HR.
season average of 28 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 151
HR between the ages of 32-37: 165
number of 40+ HR seasons: 2

12. Alex Rodriguez (33) 554

162-game average of 44 HR.
season average of 42 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: --
HR between the ages of 32-37: --
number of 40+ HR seasons: 8

13. Mike Schmidt+ 548

162-game average of 37 HR.
season average of 34 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 181
HR between the ages of 32-37: 216
number of 40+ HR seasons: 3

14. Jim Thome (38) 545

162-game average of 40 HR.
season average of 37 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 173
HR between the ages of 32-37: 207
number of 40+ HR seasons: 6

15. Mickey Mantle+ 536

162-game average of 36 HR.
season average of 31 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 117
HR between the ages of 32-37: --
number of 40+ HR seasons: 4

16. Jimmie Foxx+ 534

162-game average of 37 HR.
season average of 35 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 63
HR between the ages of 32-37: 70
number of 40+ HR seasons: 5

17. Manny Ramirez (37) 533

162-game average of 41 HR.
season average of 35 HR.
HR between the ages of 32-36: 180
HR between the ages of 32-37: 216*
number of 40+ HR seasons: 5

----

So, a few notes. I picked ages 32-36, as those were the last full five seasons Manny played, and so were the most appropriate for comparison. I've also included the 162-game averages provided by baseball-reference for each player, as well as the season average, defined by the number of home runs hit in seasons with at least 91 games played divided by the number of said seasons (basically tossing Manny's rookie year and any year from the other 16 players that didn't meet his minimum number of games otherwise played).

Some of the guys on this list are active, and thus are under the same cloud of suspicion.

Couple guys had extenuating circumstances - Jimmie Foxx served in WWII, if I'm not mistaken, and his 32-36 and 32-37 years were from 1940-45. Sosa didn't play in between his 36 y/o and 38 y/o years, so the 38 y/o year had to do for the 32-37 compare.

Mantle retired at 36, A-Rod isn't that old yet.

Finally, Manny's 32-37 total is based on an extrapolation of his 37 y/o production pace added on to 32-36, had he not been suspended.

Here's the guys who hit fewer homers from ages 32-36 than Manny Ramirez:

Ken Griffey Jr (injury-plagued, playing between 53-83 games in three of those years)
Frank Robinson (61 fewer, 74 fewer games)
Harmon Killebrew (19 fewer, 15 fewer games)
Reggie Jackson (29 fewer, 60 fewer games)
Jim Thome (7 fewer, but in 86 fewer games)
Mickey Mantle (63 fewer, 59 fewer games)
Jimmie Foxx (117 fewer, 326 fewer games)

---

So in light of all of that, what I'm looking at is a guy who put up remarkably consistent numbers during roughly equal stays in two different cities, has had teammates from both cities cite his work ethic and basically say that they'd never have suspected him of being a cheat.

He's never really had an unexplained spike, and has hit 40 or more HR 5 times in his career (never breaking 50). By comparison, only 5 of the 16 guys in front of him have hit 40+ fewer than 5 times, and several of the names in front of him hit 50+ multiple times (or in the case of Sosa, 60+).

So here are the possibilities I see staring me in the face here:

1) Ramirez cheated deliberately, did so over the duration of his career, and was remarkably good at hiding it (or else had remarkably naive teammates) for 16+ seasons.

2) Ramirez cheated deliberately, but wasn't a very good cheat - 9 of 16 of the names in front of him outhomered him from ages 32-36, and half of those that didn't had extenuating circumstances.

3) Ramirez cheated deliberately, over the duration of his career, which was good enough to lift him from an Eric Karros-like career to what we've seen instead.

4) Ramirez had not previously cheated, but did so in the run-up to or the aftermath of the contract with the Dodgers in an effort to turn in a monster season and hopefully cash in big in 2010.

5) The "personal medical issue" alluded to was legit, the medication was legit, and Manny was just a dumbass who didn't clear the prescription with MLB. He broke the rules, but not in an effort to gain competitive advantage, as would be the case in the other four scenarios.

Given the consistency of his career numbers, I'm having trouble coming up with any scenarios besides #'s 4 and 5 where the cheating would have been short-term.

He didn't have any sudden power spikes, he didn't have any periods where he went from 35-40 HR down to 17 or so for a couple seasons and then back up again. In other words, no fluctuations that might point to a timeframe for when mid-career usage would have started.

Anyway. Thought I'd throw it out there for FOFC to chew on. I'm curious to hear your thoughts; when compared to the players in front of him (some of whom are known or suspected users), is there anything in the macro view that stands out?

It's pretty apparent he used something; do you think it was deliberate, and if so, do you think it was short-term or long-term?

If you're in the short-term camp, are there any scenarios I've overlooked in terms of explanations for why he would use now if he hadn't previously done so?

[SackAttack]

dola,

just noticed I used "Manny's rookie year" when "debut year" would have been more appropriate. He still had rookie status in the 1994 season. I tossed his 1993 and 2009 seasons when doing the math.

[Drake]

I'd really like to believe #5, but I'm more in the #4 camp.

[Ksyrup]

It's pretty clear to me that he didn't overdo it like Bonds or McGwire to turn himself into a bodybuilder. So, if we allow for the possibility that he's been doing this for a long period of time, who's to say it wasn't sporadic enough to give him some benefits, but not enough to turn him into a muscle-bound freak who gained so much strength he would go from 40 to 60 HRs a year?

I tend to think we over-estimate the effects of PEDs, and this is just one possible example. Who's to say Manny's career might not have been effectively over by 2004 if he didn't take PEDs, so that the effect might have been to simply prolong his production, not necessarily send it sky-high? We just don't know. And that's the burden these players have to carry, for denying PEDs were in the game for so long and for refusing to do anything about it.

Take David Ortiz - there are plenty of possible answers for his production drop-off. I mean, just look at him. But if you look at his numbers, I think it's fair to question whether he was a user. It's unfortunate, but these guys have no one to blame but themselves. Manny Ramirez may very well be telling the truth, but he and all the other pplayers no longer deserve a benefit of the doubt. This is the price they pay for their previous actions. So in that respect, I really don't care whether the answer is #1 or #5. It's almost irrelevant.

[Matthean]

It's kind of funny to look at the first list of guys to see who we know took steroids, and then see those are pretty much the only guys who beat out Manny in the second list. It's not a 100%, but it's up there.

[Drake]

For the record, I still think Manny may be one of the best right handed hitters of his generation, even without PEDs. When he locks in and decides he's going to hit the ball, he just *does*. That always amazes me. He's just a phenomenal hitter to watch (when he's on/focused/not Manny being Manny).

[fantom1979]

This is what I see:

McGwire	277	Steroids
Ruth	255
Bonds	233	Steroids
Palmeiro	214	Steroids
Sosa	202	Steroids
Mays	196
Aaron	194
Schmidt	181
Ramirez	180	Steroids
Thome	173
Killebrew	161
Jackson	151
Robinson	119
Mantle	117
Griffey	103
Foxx	63

Ruth, Mays, and Aaron are probably in the list of top 5 position players ever. Schmidt is probably in the top 15 or so. So those guys are once in a generation type players. If you throw those 4 guys out, you are left with:

McGwire	277	Steroids
Bonds	233	Steroids
Palmeiro	214	Steroids
Sosa	202	Steroids
Ramirez	180	Steroids
Thome	173
Killebrew	161
Jackson	151
Robinson	119
Mantle	117
Griffey	103
Foxx	63

[Logan]

Let's add indicators for the guys on meth!

[CraigSca]

Isn't the drug that he tested positive for a female drug that is commonly used as a means to restart your own HgH cycle after taking steroids (i.e. your body won't start making it's own HgH once you use steroids so you have to kickstart it). From what I've read, there are no known male applications for this drug. I think it's pretty safe to say that the "has a medical issue" has been rendered false.

One other thing I don't quite understand - if PEDs help one hit homeruns at an increased rate, why do we constantly think guys who had one outstanding year as potential users? Wouldn't it make sense, especially in the '90's to have a spectacular year and say, "hey, these are great - I'm going to keep using these!" rather than, "I've had my one good year, I better stop."

Brady Anderson is a good example of this. While I feel he was probably a user, it never makes sense to me that after hitting 52 homeruns, one would STOP using PEDs. Shouln't we be looking at players who went from no power to high power and remained there? Kirby Puckett anyone?

[Logan]

Well, I think there are people who had the natural talent to hit HRs and hit well overall, who took it because others did and didn't want to be left behind. Then there are probably others who took it, saw the monster effects but also caught the eye of their 3 year old son and thought "Hey it would probably be nice to be alive to see my boy get married" and stopped.

Basically I don't think there's a simple answer for why some guys did and others didn't. Just take it as the facts we know. I don't see why there's such a desire to uncover the true meaning behind all this crap.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Brady Anderson is a good example of this. While I feel he was probably a user, it never makes sense to me that after hitting 52 homeruns, one would STOP using PEDs.

Yeah, this argument has never held water with me either. Brady Anderson: "Hm... with them, I hit 52 homers. I think I'll stop now". It makes no sense, especially since the 50 homer year was 1996 while he only hit 18 in 1997, his contract year (after which he signed a 5/$31M).

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Logan

Well, I think there are people who had the natural talent to hit HRs and hit well overall, who took it because others did and didn't want to be left behind.

I believe that's probably the case for most people who took amphetamines or steroids. Everyone else was doing so...

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Brady Anderson is a good example of this. While I feel he was probably a user, it never makes sense to me that after hitting 52 homeruns, one would STOP using PEDs. Shouln't we be looking at players who went from no power to high power and remained there? Kirby Puckett anyone?

At the time...I kind of lumped Brady's year in with the Davey Johnson fluke year guys (who hit 43 HR in 1973, and never hit more than 18 before or after). But given the era...I'm not sure any of these guys can reasonably be given the benefit of the doubt.

Let's not forget that body-builders use steroids for a particular purpose...power-lifters use them for a slightly different purpose (and get a different result)...so naturally(no pun intended) baseball players would have a slightly modified purpose and result as well. Similar to the way "some" powerlifters end up looking like they could compete in bodybuilding, "some" baseball players look like they could as well...doesnt work the same way for everybody, and some people know how to use them for the only purpose they "need" them for.

EDIT: Just to add...I think it is nearly impossible to truly understand all of the possible reasons why somebody like a Brady Anderson may or may not have used PEDs. Anything could have swayed his thinking on that. Perhaps he wasn't aware of the actual side-effects long term. Maybe he trusted somebody who was a dipshit, and was set straight by a family member/teammate/doctor/friend/whatever. We just can't know unless he tells us...and we believe it.

[DanGarion]

What doesn't seem to be taken into as a factor is that the human body reacts and performs differently from person to person. There are way to many factors that can change how someone plays the game, besides just the factor of PEDs.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Isn't the drug that he tested positive for a female drug that is commonly used as a means to restart your own HgH cycle after taking steroids (i.e. your body won't start making it's own HgH once you use steroids so you have to kickstart it). From what I've read, there are no known male applications for this drug. I think it's pretty safe to say that the "has a medical issue" has been rendered false.

1) I think you mean testosterone, not human growth hormone.
2) It does have legitimate use as a fertility treatment for guys whose testes don't work right, but from what I've read, there are other treatments more commonly prescribed than what Manny is supposed to have tested for (MLB hasn't announced the specific drug, but sources 'close to Manny' have said that's what it was). It isn't that Manny couldn't have legitimately needed the drug as much as that it's more likely that his physician would have prescribed something else for erectile difficulty.

One other thing I don't quite understand - if PEDs help one hit homeruns at an increased rate, why do we constantly think guys who had one outstanding year as potential users? Wouldn't it make sense, especially in the '90's to have a spectacular year and say, "hey, these are great - I'm going to keep using these!" rather than, "I've had my one good year, I better stop."

Brady Anderson is a good example of this. While I feel he was probably a user, it never makes sense to me that after hitting 52 homeruns, one would STOP using PEDs. Shouln't we be looking at players who went from no power to high power and remained there? Kirby Puckett anyone?[/quote]

Well, as someone else pointed out, there's always the guilty conscience. Somebody either looks at their child and goes "...am I being a positive example, even if he doesn't know I'm using?" or "I don't know what this stuff might do to me, and I'd like to be around for the little guy."

Or somebody sees what an effect it has had and goes "Wow, uh...that's not right."

I don't know that we should expect a player to go from nothing to sustained 50 HR production, but if his post-spike production is higher than his pre-spike production, especially in mid-career or later, that would be an indicator, I would think. Hitting 50 isn't just about strength. You still have to be able to read and react to the pitches, which means a guy who isn't blessed with the same physical gifts as a Bonds or Ramirez is still going to be, to a certain degree, subject to the whims and vagaries of the baseball gods. It's just that the ceiling on his career year is probably higher than it would have been.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Two things that people frequently point to for PED use are home run production and production sustained into later years because you can push the body harder, for longer.

One thing I found strange during Barry Bonds' run to break Aaron's record was that this was used as evidence (to the media) that Bonds used steroids and he should never be compared to Aaron. But doesn't it also describe Aaron pretty well?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Samdari

One thing I found strange during Barry Bonds' run to break Aaron's record was that this was used as evidence (to the media) that Bonds used steroids and he should never be compared to Aaron. But doesn't it also describe Aaron pretty well?

Yeah. That's exactly what jumped out at me last night when I started working on this. I started by comparing Ramirez to Aaron and then thought, well, I should spread it out and compare it to the entire list of people ahead of Manny on the HR leaderboard, but it jumped out at me that Aaron had almost as many 40+ HR seasons after the age of 31 as Manny has had in his entire career, and that was only half of Aaron's 40+ haul.

Either Ramirez was a remarkably sophisticated cheat, or a terrible cheat, or his true ceiling was much lower than what we've seen and he's been a career user. Those seem like the three most likely options to me, if the usage was with competitive advantage in mind.

[chesapeake]

My own pet theory about Brady Anderson is that he juiced until his best friend -- Cal Ripken, Jr. -- intervened with him much like someone would with a friend that had a drug or alcohol addiction. I have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim other than that it is well-known that the two were and continue to be best friends.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, but who says Ripken wasn't on greenies at the time, in order to get him "up" for all those consecutive games?

[SteveMax58]

Can we just restart baseball from the beginning of the 1994 season and re-sim until now without the strike or steroids?

Seriously though...while I know there is likely a lot of players that did not mess with any PEDs...I really don't see how its possible to think any given player didn't use them for some duration. As mentioned, guys like Ripken (may have been a joke, but possible in my book), Anderson, Dykstra, Bagwell, Matt Williams...maybe even Mike Schmidt in 86 & 87. Who really knows?

That's why I just think, for purposes of record-books and the HoF, all the stats of the past 20 or so years should be let to stand. McGwire...a HoF'er...same w/ Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens, etc.

[Ksyrup]

I really have no problem picking and choosing who makes the HoF based on what we know. I think the Buster Olney position of "I'm voting for everybody because I don't know who was using and who was not" is a tremendous cop out. You base your decision on what facts are out there. If steroid use doesn't affect your decision one way or the other, then fine, vote them all in. But saying you're going to vote ARod in along with all the others because you don't know whether the others used...what does that matter? Do we decide not to prosecute certain rapists because we haven't caught every rapist and it's not fair to the ones we happen to have evidence on? Whether you think there's enough evidence to hold it against someon for HoF purposes is one thing. But lumping ARod, Palmeiro, and Manny into the same category as all other players just because we don't have perfect knowledge of all users is ridiculous, IMO.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Can we just restart baseball from the beginning of the 1994 season and re-sim until now without the strike or steroids?

Seriously though...while I know there is likely a lot of players that did not mess with any PEDs...I really don't see how its possible to think any given player didn't use them for some duration. As mentioned, guys like Ripken (may have been a joke, but possible in my book), Anderson, Dykstra, Bagwell, Matt Williams...maybe even Mike Schmidt in 86 & 87. Who really knows?

That's why I just think, for purposes of record-books and the HoF, all the stats of the past 20 or so years should be let to stand. McGwire...a HoF'er...same w/ Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, Clemens, etc.

It's definitely important to keep in perspective that there have been PEDs of various kinds in baseball since at least the 50s. And before that, players had an even far greater unfair advantage (they didn't have to play against blacks, latinos, or asians).

For some reason though, I still don't have a problem making an example of a high profile few, even though "everyone" was doing it. I want a cleaner game, and I can't think of a better way to do that than to basically disregard the careers of some of the offenders. I don't feel bad for them in the slighest. I DEFINITELY wouldn't want any record books re-written though, as I find that whole concept ridiculous, but I'm all for for society and the HOF shunning these people. The only strides we'll make in this area is when it's high profile - not when it's a secret in the locker room, like it was for who knows how long.

[Ksyrup]

The older players taking greenies and stuff...it's just too long ago to deal with it effectively now. It serves no purpose, other than to put today's issues into context. Some have acknowledged it. Heck, just a couple of days ago, Darryl Strawberry told XM's MLB Channel that he popped greenies before every game.

I compare it to presidents having affairs. FDR and JFK got lucky because it was a different time, when information wasn't instantly available and reporters looked the other way or didn't cover that kind of thing as news. Clinton wasn't so lucky. It may be unfair, but that's life.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I really have no problem picking and choosing who makes the HoF based on what we know. I think the Buster Olney position of "I'm voting for everybody because I don't know who was using and who was not" is a tremendous cop out. You base your decision on what facts are out there. If steroid use doesn't affect your decision one way or the other, then fine, vote them all in. But saying you're going to vote ARod in along with all the others because you don't know whether the others used...what does that matter? Do we decide not to prosecute certain rapists because we haven't caught every rapist and it's not fair to the ones we happen to have evidence on? Whether you think there's enough evidence to hold it against someon for HoF purposes is one thing. But lumping ARod, Palmeiro, and Manny into the same category as all other players just because we don't have perfect knowledge of all users is ridiculous, IMO.

I think of prison sentences and the court system in general as having a bit more importance than the baseball hall of fame, and thus higher standards of proof.

I think Olney is right-on - so people decide not to vote in Bonds or A-Rod because they were caught using and let slide all the rest that haven't yet been caught? Do you add a provision to the hall of fame to remove those who've been voted in that were later found to have used? Do you start a movement to remove guys like Mantle and Mays and others of that era for their illegal use of greenies?

[Fighter of Foo]

Why are home run hitters getting all the scrutiny when pitchers were on the same drugs?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Why are home run hitters getting all the scrutiny when pitchers were on the same drugs?

Good question, and one I've brought up a lot.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Why are home run hitters getting all the scrutiny when pitchers were on the same drugs?

Do steroids give you a better break on your curveball or dramatically improve your control?

If you're going to rail against the use of PEDs by pitchers, what do you hang your hat on? For a guy like Clemens, okay, the ability to go longer and harder in workouts to recapture what he had let slip away, and pitch very well into his 40s, velocity and all.

But for younger guys, what can you look at, point to, and call into question? Offensively, home runs are the sexy indicator. For pitchers, what; an extra 5-7 mph on the fastball and improved strikeout totals, maybe? Gagne turned into a stud closer. Would steroids have done him any good had he remained a starter?

Or is there a mental element to pitching that can defeat even the most sophisticated steroid use if said mental element isn't present in the pitcher's makeup?

It's a worthy question, but not one that's easy to answer in the context of the soundbite media.

[dawgfan]

If juicing can allow you to throw your fastball faster, then it can allow you to add more break to your breaking pitches. And more importantly, it likely allows you to maintain your velocity and break throughout the season without feeling as burned-out.

[SteveMax58]

I realize this is a wildly unpopular opinion...but I don't really think it's a cop out to be against picking out the few just because baseball didn't care 10 or more years ago...but now it does because fans have shown their outrage with the game. If baseball cares about PEDs now...then baseball can make direct punishments that affect players now (which it has). I'm not a fan of retro-active rules intended to punish the unlucky idiots that were caught.

My opinion is that PEDs are a form of cheating...but just like corking bats, using KY Jelly, scuffing the ball, etc....until it is deemed punishable, then it stands as part of the game, the record books, and (in my view) HoF consideration. My disgust with guys that used PEDs doesn't change the fact that Bonds has more HR's than anybody who has ever played. This is an accomplishment worthy of HoF in my (very unpopular) book.

And as far as legality issues...not all PEDs are illegal, or were illegal at the time of use...and any PED that was illegal at the time of use should be prosecuted if it can be proven in court (and still within statutes). I realize that is (nearly) mission impossible, but in any event, it doesn't change what actually happened on the field.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Do steroids give you a better break on your curveball or dramatically improve your control?

If you're going to rail against the use of PEDs by pitchers, what do you hang your hat on? For a guy like Clemens, okay, the ability to go longer and harder in workouts to recapture what he had let slip away, and pitch very well into his 40s, velocity and all.

But for younger guys, what can you look at, point to, and call into question? Offensively, home runs are the sexy indicator. For pitchers, what; an extra 5-7 mph on the fastball and improved strikeout totals, maybe? Gagne turned into a stud closer. Would steroids have done him any good had he remained a starter?

Or is there a mental element to pitching that can defeat even the most sophisticated steroid use if said mental element isn't present in the pitcher's makeup?

It's a worthy question, but not one that's easy to answer in the context of the soundbite media.

You only need around an extra 2mph on your fastball for the difference to be profound. For hitting I'd say the impact is probably less dramatic. Does anyone really think Manny or Arod would be poor players had they been entirely clean?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

If juicing can allow you to throw your fastball faster, then it can allow you to add more break to your breaking pitches. And more importantly, it likely allows you to maintain your velocity and break throughout the season without feeling as burned-out.

Yes it does. The same way it helps you recover from a strenous weightlifting workout...it can help your legs/knees/etc. recover more quickly after throwing every 5 days for 6 months. So those pitchers with solid mechanics (who aren't "ALL ARM" types) would benefit just as much from PEDs as HR hitters.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think of prison sentences and the court system in general as having a bit more importance than the baseball hall of fame, and thus higher standards of proof.

Exactly. That's why it makes plenty of sense to judge baseball players by a lower standard of proof on the issue of steroids - there's no reason to completely disregard the information that's out there. You wouldn't do that for a high standard of proof issue like a criminal act, so how does it make any sense to do that for something that is basically a personal standard of proof? If anything, the only "all or nothing" approach that makes sense to me is to vote none of them in, wait for as many facts to come out over the years as possible, and then take up each one on a case-by-case basis. But as it stands, I say judge them on what you know during the 15 years they are eligible.

[ISiddiqui]

You cannot every compare them back to guys in the past.

What about to the 50s and 60s when everyone and their mothers were popping greenies?

Anybody testing positive with those samples will have their stats stricken from the recordbooks forever.

I'm sorry, but that is still the dumbest thing I've ever heard, no matter how many times its said.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rowech

Anybody testing positive with those samples will have their stats stricken from the recordbooks forever.

I've always wondered - what does this mean exactly? Does anyone own a MLB "record book"? Would baseballreference.com and ESPN.com have to delete any mention of a banned player? What authority does MLB have to do that?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Do steroids give you a better break on your curveball or dramatically improve your control?

If you're going to rail against the use of PEDs by pitchers, what do you hang your hat on? For a guy like Clemens, okay, the ability to go longer and harder in workouts to recapture what he had let slip away, and pitch very well into his 40s, velocity and all.

But for younger guys, what can you look at, point to, and call into question? Offensively, home runs are the sexy indicator. For pitchers, what; an extra 5-7 mph on the fastball and improved strikeout totals, maybe? Gagne turned into a stud closer. Would steroids have done him any good had he remained a starter?

Or is there a mental element to pitching that can defeat even the most sophisticated steroid use if said mental element isn't present in the pitcher's makeup?

It's a worthy question, but not one that's easy to answer in the context of the soundbite media.

It doesn't need an answer though. If they took them, they cheated, broke the rules, tried to gain an advantage, however you want to say it. There doesn't need to be a visible, direct benefit to make it wrong or mean they shouldn't be punished in whatever manner is decided on (suspension, lack of HoF admittance, etc). I'm sure there were some hitters who started taking steroids and the added strength made them worse (maybe it messed up their natural swing or changed their approach by trying for more HRs). It doesn't make them any less guilty.

I realize your original point was to discuss the question of "should we question Manny's numbers?" so this is more a general point than an attempt to answer that.

[Klinglerware]

So, if Barry Bonds hits a home run off of Denny Neagle at Coors--how would that work? Disallow the Home Run because Barry juiced (allegedly), allow the Home Run because it was off a pitcher who also juiced (allegedly)? Let the Home Run stand (or not), because it happened at Coors (an even larger factor influencing performance than PED use in many cases)?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by rowech

The only one I'm not sure of is Griffey but I think he probably used something at some point. If he didn't, and all those other guys did, he'll never get the credit he deserves and that's the shame of the cheaters. They brought down baseball and everyone with it. Not just themselves.

While I don't agree (or know how you could) remove the other guys from historical record...I do agree that this is the likely shame of the last 2 decades for the great players that did not use any PEDs (though possibility says it could be "none").

Fans will (rightfully) debate and question who was truly great via natural methods...but I also think it's a shame that guys like Bonds will be automatically removed from that debate as this is likely somebody in the discussion if he never used anything. But we just cant know for sure. Sucks...

[molson]

If simply banning someone for life is enough of a punishment for rigging the World Series (Black Sox) or betting on your own team (Pete Rose), surely that's a good enough penalty for juicing up.

Going back in time to change history is just a terrible idea.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

If simply banning someone for life is enough of a punishment for rigging the World Series (Black Sox) or betting on your own team (Pete Rose), surely that's a good enough penalty for juicing up.

Going back in time to change history is just a terrible idea.

Uh... so just chuck the standards that are put in place? I kinda like the system they have. 50 games for a first offense seems decent enough to me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uh... so just chuck the standards that are put in place? I kinda like the system they have. 50 games for a first offense seems decent enough to me.

No, suspensions are great too - I was just responding to the idea to void past accomplishments, strike people from the records, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah, ok.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Exactly. That's why it makes plenty of sense to judge baseball players by a lower standard of proof on the issue of steroids - there's no reason to completely disregard the information that's out there. You wouldn't do that for a high standard of proof issue like a criminal act, so how does it make any sense to do that for something that is basically a personal standard of proof? If anything, the only "all or nothing" approach that makes sense to me is to vote none of them in, wait for as many facts to come out over the years as possible, and then take up each one on a case-by-case basis. But as it stands, I say judge them on what you know during the 15 years they are eligible.

I take the lower standard of proof the other direction and assume most of them are guilty. So what does that leave us with - a Hall of Fame where almost nobody from this era makes it in? Why? Because they used an illegal drug to gain an advantage? Well guess what - the Hall of Fame is filled with guys that used illegal drugs to gain an advantage, or used other methods of cheating. So why the different standard for steroid users?

[Senator]

You know what? F Baseball.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I take the lower standard of proof the other direction and assume most of them are guilty. So what does that leave us with - a Hall of Fame where almost nobody from this era makes it in? Why? Because they used an illegal drug to gain an advantage? Well guess what - the Hall of Fame is filled with guys that used illegal drugs to gain an advantage, or used other methods of cheating. So why the different standard for steroid users?

This is pretty much my view as well (bolded the primary point for emphasis). I suspect this is the primary difference in the viewpoints on this as well. Since so many are likely guilty (perhaps most if not all, IMO), I can't rationalize rewarding those that were just better at covering their tracks by disparaging those that weren't. This is why I come to the conclusion that you just reward what they did on the field...for what they did on the field.

It isn't like MLB wasn't aware steroids and general PEDs had athletic enhancement capabilities...the NFL clamped down (or at least made an effort) in the late 70's/early 80's (IIRC) to cleanup their act and the olympics had plenty of the same high-profile users busted before the 90's as well. For MLB to not only turn a blind eye (or play ignorant), but then try to punish the players they enabled for so long (and in my view, commended) with retro-retribution, takes some degree of stones IMHO.

[kenparker23]

Agree and disagree with many points raised here.

To compare greenies to the current generation is crazy. It is documented in federal records that Barry Bonds (and others) had a "cocktail" of drugs including anabolic steroids, HGH, masking agents, diuretics. The guy was a pharmaceutical experiment. There is no comparison to taking amphetamines (greenies) to this stuff.

There is evidence that steroids do allow pitchers more endurance. Velocity or break on the ball is debatable. It also is documented that pitchers will break down much quicker. I think in terms of pitchers, steroids are more "enablers" than "enhancers".

As far as numbers, I am a huge baseball fan. It does irk me that a cheater sits atop one of the most hallowed records in sports. However, if you are going to count the records and the player is worthy of the hall of fame, then they should be in the hall of fame. There is no way to know what, where, when. I think Bonds is a first ballad hall of famer. McGuire is debatable.

I like the Olympics in that if a sprinter is guilty, his/her record for that race is erased (Ben Johnson in 88; still the most explosive 40 yds I have ever seen).

The only way I could see baseball erasing records is to take those who have tested positive, the year they tested positive, and erase the records for that year (race). Since no testing was done in the Bonds era, there is no way to know. My question to the board is this: If Barry Bonds came out and admitted to using all of the above drugs on a regular basis from 99-03, should his numbers from those years become null and void??? I do not know.

[CU Tiger]

I've read much but not all of this thread. My thoughts, fwiw
- As a former PED user, 99% of the population has no clue what PED do. And that there are literally DOZENS of different roids, each that do something different.
- What makes everyone so sure that Hank Aaron, Reggie Jackson, Jimmie Foxx et. al. weren't using steroids. The first documented use of anabolic steroids goes to the 30s...and Reggie was arrested in possesion of illegal perscription drugs at the age of 19...
- Griffey? Really? No one thinks he is a juicer? You are all crazy.
- Again from the perspective of a former user there are MANY players who jump out at me. The body doesnt lose fat and gain lean muscle mass even at 25....that is a teenage occurence.
- My bigger question is why do we care? A human muscle still drove that ball over that fence. If he ate good, took vitamins or injected horse steroids into his genitals (the ONLY place NCAA investigators aren't allowed to check) he still sacrificed enough to pull it off. If he grows a tumore and dies at 60...so be it he paid the ultimate sacrifice to be the best.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

To compare greenies to the current generation is crazy. It is documented in federal records that Barry Bonds (and others) had a "cocktail" of drugs including anabolic steroids, HGH, masking agents, diuretics. The guy was a pharmaceutical experiment. There is no comparison to taking amphetamines (greenies) to this stuff.

Why? Are some illegal performance enhancers ok, but others are worthy of scorn and shame forever?

The only way I could see baseball erasing records is to take those who have tested positive, the year they tested positive, and erase the records for that year (race).

No. I dislike any erasing records of any kind. It happened. It impacted games. A one time x meter race is different. It has no other impacts aside from that one heat. Another reason being because it actually is a true individual sport.

Erasing history is like something some tin-pot dictator would do. And you can bet that places like baseball-reference.com or whatever, would still include it because it'd be impossible to statistically describe a season if some hitters were deleted.

We do not delete records for a game for a person who has been caught using a corked bat for that game.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Why? Are some illegal performance enhancers ok, but others are worthy of scorn and shame forever?

Stop making sense.

[kenparker23]

Why? Are some illegal performance enhancers ok, but others are worthy of scorn and shame forever?

The answer is no. There is nothing ok in terms of illegal performance enhancers. A banned substance is a banned substance.

Amphetamines versus anabolic steroids is a long debate. Some amphetamines are legal. Amphetamines in my mind are more in the category of enablers for fatigued players.

However, the basis of my opinion comes from many different sources both personal and professional. A cortisone injection is a steroid, but not illegal. It enables performance in someone who otherwise would be limited. It does not improve your baseline function. Taking what amounts to a horse steroid and HGH are very different. My contention is that Barry Bonds would not have posted the numbers he did at his age with amphetamines. He was bigger, and stronger with no change in reaction time than he was in his athletic prime. His face was that of a patient with cushings syndrome. Amphetamines do not cause these effects.

We do both agree that amphetamines should be banned. The problem with greenies was more rampant than that of steroids. My point is that the numbers of baseball have taken a significant turn upward in terms of power in the last 20 years. About the same time that steroids became more popular. True, steroids have been around longer than 20 years, but the use has spiked in the last 20 yrs.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kenparker23

My point is that the numbers of baseball have taken a significant turn upward in terms of power in the last 20 years. About the same time that steroids became more popular. True, steroids have been around longer than 20 years, but the use has spiked in the last 20 yrs.

And here we get to the crux of the argument for most people that are up in arms about steroid use in baseball. And the sad part is most of these people ignore the other factors that also coincide with the rise in power - a decreasing strike zone, more hitter-friendly ballparks, improvements in bats, a significant increase in weight-training by baseball players. But lets all just pin it on steroids, and ignore the fact that pitchers have been using at least as much as hitters.