PDA

View Full Version : Other Sports Colorado Rockies finally caught cheating? What do you think?


Buck
09-25-2010, 01:11 AM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K74NUqrli5M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K74NUqrli5M?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

The vid will prob be taken down soon due to the MLB's whiny bitch asses though.

blaise
09-25-2010, 01:19 AM
How is that he caught them cheating? How do you know he doesn't just think the ball wasn'r scuffed up enough for his liking, or something? Did he comment about it afterwards?

Jewish Rabbi
09-25-2010, 01:20 AM
lol wut

Buck
09-25-2010, 01:21 AM
You can see him saying, "Fucking juiced balls that's bullshit."

Sorry should have mentioned that.

blaise
09-25-2010, 01:28 AM
He's pitching his 6th scoreless inning there, so how bad could it be?

Buck
09-25-2010, 01:37 AM
He's pitching his 6th scoreless inning there, so how bad could it be?

The theory is that if the Rockies aren't winning, late in the game they send in balls that have not been in the humidor, during their turn at bat, and once they get the lead they go back to the humidor balls.

The Rockies home record is 51-25, which is 3rd best in the major leagues. Their road record (where they don't control the balls) is 31-46, good for 10th worst in baseball.

This has been a huge rumor all year.

Pitt Gorilla
09-25-2010, 01:40 AM
The theory is that if the Rockies aren't winning, late in the game they send in balls that have not been in the humidor, during their turn at bat, and once they get the lead they go back to the humidor balls.

The Rockies home record is 51-25, which is 3rd best in the major leagues. Their road record (where they don't control the balls) is 31-46, good for 10th worst in baseball.

This has been a huge rumor all year.It's been a lot longer than a year, IIRC.

Buck
09-25-2010, 01:42 AM
It's been a lot longer than a year, IIRC.

Yeah, its been since 2007.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 01:46 AM
It's an interesting theory, but is there any evidence to substantiate that? It's a unique environment anyway, so traditional W-L records at home should be taken into consideration.

Hell, look at the disparity in the Cardinals W-L at home, and they have a completely neutral park.

Jerm
09-25-2010, 01:47 AM
It's an interesting theory, but is there any evidence to substantiate that? It's a unique environment anyway, so traditional W-L records at home should be taken into consideration.

Hell, look at the disparity in the Cardinals W-L at home, and they have a completely neutral park.

That's what makes me think they could easily get away it...all they gotta do is blame the altitude or whatever and no one really thinks about it.

Buck
09-25-2010, 01:49 AM
It's an interesting theory, but is there any evidence to substantiate that? It's a unique environment anyway, so traditional W-L records at home should be taken into consideration.

Hell, look at the disparity in the Cardinals W-L at home, and they have a completely neutral park.

Yeah, that's an astute observation.

I was reading an article about "juiced balls" yesterday actually, and the author talked about what a "Juiced ball" means. He also said that the pitchers should be able to tell if a ball is juiced based on feel alone. Strange that one day later Lincecum felt it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 01:59 AM
FWIW, the juiced ball theory of the 1990s and 2000s has been wholly debunked by numerous separate studies. That said, The ball will travel farther in that air, and baseball teams have a long history of cheating in a variety of ways, most notably the 1950 Giants employing spies in the OF scoreboard to steal signs that many felt led to Bobby Thompson's HR.

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:04 AM
FWIW, the juiced ball theory of the 1990s and 2000s has been wholly debunked by numerous separate studies. That said, The ball will travel farther in that air, and baseball teams have a long history of cheating in a variety of ways, most notably the 1950 Giants employing spies in the OF scoreboard to steal signs that many felt led to Bobby Thompson's HR.

In this case, "Juiced" means not placed in a humidor.

clyde05
09-25-2010, 02:05 AM
so that explains why olivio is hitting, got it now, wonder if the blue jays are doing that for buck too or maybe it just the roids supplied to buck by bautista

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 02:09 AM
FWIW, the juiced ball theory of the 1990s and 2000s has been wholly debunked by numerous separate studies.
Care to link those studies?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 02:19 AM
Care to link those studies?

Here were the tests done by a Mechanical Engineering Professor at MIT:

The leather cover -- the switch from horsehide to cowhide came in 1974 -- is inspected for 17 potential imperfections, from stretch marks to scars, and then it is stitched on by hand. The ball is checked to make sure it fits the major league specifications of five ounces, and nine inches around.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-00/05-19-00/tab.gif The ball is also required to have a specific hardness, or "coefficient of restitution," which is measured by firing it at a piece of northern white ash, 21/2 inches thick. The ball's speed is measured as it comes out of the gun, and it must rebound at 54.6 percent its original speed, plus or minus 3.2 percent.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-00/05-19-00/tab.gif The ball also must hold its shape within 0.08 of an inch after being subjected to 65 pounds of pressure.
http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-00/05-19-00/tab.gif Sherwood said his Baseball Research Center can't divulge its testing methods. But he did say that he will make sure the balls being used meet the specifications in the rule book.


http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-00/05-19-00/c01sp116.htm

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27932072_ITM

They were manufactured at the Rawlings factory in Costa Rica between Sept. 1-14. A total of 500 dozen balls (6,000, if you're calculating along) were then tested and shipped to Missouri in late September. And last weekend, 60 dozen of those balls were sent to San Francisco, while another 120 dozen were airlifted to Anaheim.


Alderson contended that the only difference between these baseballs and the balls used during the regular season was a distinctive World Series stamp that was applied to them at Rawlings headquarters in Missouri. We're not sure how that stamp was applied, but after witnessing that 11-10 game, even Alderson couldn't resist at least one joke.


"It has a special stamp on it," he quipped, "that says, `Hit me.'"


Just kidding. Just kidding, folks. More officially speaking, Alderson said of these heinous charges: "We're not alarmed by what's going on. We're very confident in the balls and the consistency of their manufacture."

http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1449183.html

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 02:30 AM
This study from URI directly opposes that, showing that the balls changed significantly after 1993: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:34 AM
This study from URI directly opposes that, showing that the balls changed significantly after 1993: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/changing-baseball.shtml

One ball each from those years?

I can see why a single ball thats been sitting around since 1963 might seem dead...

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 02:38 AM
One ball each from those years?

I can see why a single ball thats been sitting around since 1963 might seem dead...
There's also the Penn State study there, if that's not enough.

That author of the site also addresses the "study" that the MLB rep Alderson and Sherwood performed on the 99/2000 balls, an irrelevant exercise anyway.

Really, the "juiced ball theory" hasn't been sufficiently debunked at all by anybody that I can find. Common sense also leads us to that conclusion, when you look at the enormous upswing in offense in baseball in the years following the strike.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:10 AM
There's also the Penn State study there, if that's not enough.

That author of the site also addresses the "study" that the MLB rep Alderson and Sherwood performed on the 99/2000 balls, an irrelevant exercise anyway.

Really, the "juiced ball theory" hasn't been sufficiently debunked at all by anybody that I can find. Common sense also leads us to that conclusion, when you look at the enormous upswing in offense in baseball in the years following the strike.

This is just so much bullshit.

You had expansion in 1993. Amazingly, offense exploded in 1994.

You had a further expansion in 1998. Again, offense exploded again.

On top of that, you had new designers steroids that not only were not detectable, they also had far fewer side effects. In addition to this, you also had methods of obtaining growth hormone that were far safer (ie, not from cadavers or cows) and easier to come by.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:16 AM
Unfortunately, the URI study is bullshit because of the change that heat and humidity will have on a wound ball with a leather cover over even a few years, which is precisely why the MIT study focused on new balls held against the current MLB rules.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 03:17 AM
This is just so much bullshit.

You had expansion in 1993. Amazingly, offense exploded in 1994.

You had a further expansion in 1998. Again, offense exploded again.

Expansion is a legitimate reason for offense exploding, yes, but offense stayed up well into last decade until 2007.

And you still haven't explained what's bullshit about those studies there.



On top of that, you had new designers steroids that not only were not detectable, they also had far fewer side effects. In addition to this, you also had methods of obtaining growth hormone that were far safer (ie, not from cadavers or cows) and easier to come by.
More undetectable PEDs are being produced and used than ever before by players. Ever heard of SARMs? If steroids were a legitimate reason, we'd still see offense up right now because there's no reason to think that PED use has dropped off at all.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8470

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 03:20 AM
I'm still waiting to see "the numerous separate studies" that supposedly debunked the theory, but I'm guessing that was more exaggeration and hyperbole from our resident baseball expert.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:37 AM
I'm still waiting to see "the numerous separate studies" that supposedly debunked the theory, but I'm guessing that was more exaggeration and hyperbole from our resident baseball expert.

UMass did a study which debunked it.

On top of that, other baseball manufacturers, who would stand to gain greatly by the PR humiliation of Rawlings agreed with the findings.

I'd like to know why you're following me around like a fucking psycho just because you're butthurt that I don't buy into your "the ball was juiced" conspiracy theory or the ascendance of Jose Batista as the best power hitter in baseball.

I'm sorry, my brain doesn't have a set of dumbfuck waves it operates on, so such conclusions are preposterous.

Besides, here is the complete report. It's not short-changed or speculative bullshit, it's complete and in its entirety, fully describing both the methods and results of the research:

http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf (http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/%7Ea-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf)

Diluted pitching, PEDs, smaller strike zones, and smaller ballparks. But no, instead baseball had Rawlings change the baseball to produce more runs because they were worried about losing fans (which doesn't explain the 1994 explosion, or the 1969 explosion, or the 1998 explosion).

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:42 AM
On top of this, I'm also sure that MLB had a stock of non-juiced balls that they could send to UMass, and on top of this, that Rawlings changed their entire manufacturing process not just for their ML balls, but also the minor league balls that the testers dissected whenever they performed their analysis.

They also performed heat and humidity tests equivalent to the aging process of 5 years.

On top of that, the manufacturers of the wool ball also directly contradict the findings about the restitution factor of synthetic windings on balls.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 03:50 AM
UMass did a study which debunked it.

UMass' "study" was funded by MLB and it didn't prove much of anything relevant at all. Read the website.


On top of that, other baseball manufacturers, who would stand to gain greatly by the PR humiliation of Rawlings agreed with the findings.

Of course they did. Why would they want to hinder any future relationship with MLB?


I'd like to know why you're following me around like a ****ing psycho just because you're butthurt that I don't buy into your "the ball was juiced" conspiracy theory or the ascendance of Jose Batista as the best power hitter in baseball.

Now you're getting both defensive and paranoid. I'm not following you around at all. I just find it funny, that for such a so-called expert on baseball, you are so ignorant about many aspects of the sport.



Besides, here is the complete report. It's not short-changed or speculative bullshit, it's complete and in its entirety, fully describing both the methods and results of the research:

http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf (http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/%7Ea-nathan/pob/UML2000.pdf)

Diluted pitching, PEDs, smaller strike zones, and smaller ballparks. But no, instead baseball had Rawlings change the baseball to produce more runs because they were worried about losing fans (which doesn't explain the 1994 explosion, or the 1969 explosion, or the 1998 explosion).
I've read this. It's linked on the website above that disputes the meaning of its findings.

I'm still counting one study, and it's a suspect one indeed (considering they didn't even look at older balls).

In any event, the 1999/2000 difference the Lowell lads examined completely lacks interest, being merely a straw man erected by MLB and Rawlings: no one at all is surprised that there were no perceptible differences, since even the most ardent ball-juicing advocates have nothing to say about that brief period. What is--or would have been--of interest is the 1992 - 1994 period, which is when, it is widely believed, there was a material change. Why didn't the Lowell lads look at that period?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 04:01 AM
You definitely did not read it. If you did, I'd like to know what you find questionable about their methods, because it looks like impeccable research to me.

1. They followed the baseballs through every step of manufacture
2. Independent observers saw the testing of baseballs
3. The baseballs were aged to note disparities in performance
4. The materials of manufacture were followed from the source
5. They had not changed the methods of manufacture for 20 years.
6. They dissected balls from three different years in two different levels of baseball provided by two different sources.


At this point, the only thing that needs to be said is that continuing a further argument with you is pointless, as you are what a rhetorician would call a "fanatical skeptic".

Furthermore, you can't even list why you think the study is flawed (since your objection is not grounded in anything but hope) only that you believe another.

Again, I suggest that you return to college, assuming you ever attended. Take a basic course in rhetoric and argumentation. One of the first things that you will learn is that scientific studies hold far more weight than websites, especially advocacy websites. Of course, one not need to attend college to know this, one only need a brain.

I can go to any zealot's website and have them tell me that evolution is a myth or that the earth is flat while also quote mining, but I think that most would find that those who can provide specific evidence for their claims are those whose words hold the most sway.

Summary
Extensive testing was performed on the 1999 and 2000 Major League baseballs and the 2000
Minor League baseball. Data from a small sample of 1998 Major League baseballs were also
compared. Two methods were used to measure the performance of the balls. The methods
were in agreement and the results conclusive:
· The differences between the performance of the 1999 and 2000 Major League baseballs
are negligible, and their batted-ball distances will average within 2 feet of each other.
· The 1998 baseballs also appear to perform at the same level as the 2000 baseball.
· No differences in ball construction of the 1999 and 2000 baseballs were observed
including the slipperiness of the covers.
Unlike the Major League pill, which is a compressed-cork center, the Minor League pill is
constructed with a pure-cork center. This pure-cork center results in a lower performance for
the Minor League ball with batted-ball distances approximately 8 feet shorter.
In destructive tests of baseballs, all models of baseballs failed to meet most of the construction
tolerances, i.e. respective wind diameters, as specified In Exhibit A. However, the performance
related requirements, e.g. COR (coefficient of restitution), were satisfied, and these
performance requirements are more critical to batted-ball performance than are winding
diameters. It should be realized that some of these construction deficiencies are probably a
consequence of the compression of the windings when additional windings and the cover are
added. The balls could very well meet the specified diameters during that particular stage of
ball assembly.
Assuming a nominal batted-ball distance of 400 ft, the potential range of batted-ball distances
for the balls tested in this study is on the order of 7 feet. This 7-ft range implies that the battedball
performances for the balls investigated in this study are essentially the same.
Accelerated aging techniques for baseballs were inconclusive and need to be refined. The
testing of past-year balls with a concurrent aging-effects study is underway.
Introduction
At the request of Major League Baseball, The University of Massachusetts Lowell (UML)
Baseball Research Center and Sports Engineering conducted a study to determine if any
differences exist between the 1999 and 2000 Major League baseballs and if these differences
would affect batted-ball performance. The 2000 Minor League baseballs were also tested and
compared. Ball compliance was checked per the Exhibit A specifications of the Rawlings –
Major League Baseball (MLB) agreement. Data on MLB baseballs from studies performed in
1998 and 1999 by Sports Engineering are included for comparison.
Rawlings and nine MLB teams supplied a total of 192 baseballs for the study. Upon arrival, the
balls were serialized, weighed and measured. The serialization identifies the source, year and
sample number. After five days of storage in environmentally controlled conditions, the balls
were reweighed. The balls were then allocated for a variety of tests that included:
· Teardown for specification compliance measurements.
· Ball-aging and pill-aging studies.
· COR comparison using the standard ASTM wall method.
· COR and Relative Batted-ball Velocity (RBV) comparison using the UML
Baum hitting machine.
· Cover friction comparison.
In order to obtain an education on the processes involved in manufacturing the baseball,
engineers from UML accompanied MLB on tours of the Costa Rican assembly plant and the
facilities where many of the baseball components are fabricated.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 04:03 AM
Extensive testing was performed on the 1999 and 2000 Major League baseballs and the 2000
Minor League baseball. Data from a small sample of 1998 Major League baseballs were also
compared. Two methods were used to measure the performance of the balls. The methods
were in agreement and the results conclusive:
· The differences between the performance of the 1999 and 2000 Major League baseballs
are negligible, and their batted-ball distances will average within 2 feet of each other.
· The 1998 baseballs also appear to perform at the same level as the 2000 baseball.

Once again, the critical issue here is why would anybody expect there to be a difference between the 1998, 1999 and 2000 baseballs? What was the point of the study?

That wasn't the suspect time period.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 04:09 AM
FWIW, should anyone be so interested the myths that this website supposedly brings up, it only twice mentions that the UMass study is a strawman, but offers no evidence as to why its findings are inaccurate or incomplete, other than a misreading of a statement by the person conducting the study after a quote mine, which, given the professionalism of the site, is not at all surprising.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 04:10 AM
At this point, the only thing that needs to be said is that continuing a further argument with you is pointless, as you are what a rhetorician would call a "fanatical skeptic".

Furthermore, you can't even list why you think the study is flawed (since your objection is not grounded in anything but hope) only that you believe another.

Again, I suggest that you return to college, assuming you ever attended. Take a basic course in rhetoric and argumentation. One of the first things that you will learn is that scientific studies hold far more weight than websites, especially advocacy websites. Of course, one not need to attend college to know this, one only need a brain.

LOL. A lesson from the guy citing a meaningless study focusing on the irrelevant 1999 and 2000 seasons (not the issue in the first place) funded by MLB, an organization with incentive to cover up their own ball changes.

I should note, once again, that you have yet to show me the "numerous studies" that you promised me that would debunk the theory. I have shown you two that indicate the opposite conclusion.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 04:10 AM
Once again, the critical issue here is why would anybody expect there to be a difference between the 1998, 1999 and 2000 baseballs? What was the point of the study?

That wasn't the suspect time period.

It's quite clear: They fell within the accepted COR, weight and construction materials as determined by MLB long before the supposed spike according to a juiced ball.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 04:26 AM
Don't worry kids, KC Connection says that Rawlings, despite being in direct competition with other baseball manufacturers, would have them stick up for them because those manufacturers don't want to hurt their non-existent relationship with MLB. On top of that, MLB would come out looking horrible for this, since they are the ones who manufacture the balls, and in no way would they have plausible deniability even if they were covering this up.

On top of this, Rawlings is astute enough to change their construction process when a study is announced than then performed almost immediately. So astute, in fact, that they can go back and retroactively change the construction materialis. Yes, Rawlings, who can't make a golf club, has invented the time machine.

As if that weren't enough, the fact that offense spiked every other time there was expansion '69, '77, '94, and 1998 is something to be ignored, as are the changing physiques of the players in the late 1990s that also corresponded with a huge increase in homers, as did smaller parks and smaller strike zones.

If that weren't enough, once testing was in place, home run numbers suddenly dropped, but not to 1960s levels.

Of course, this is also a new allegation, as people never thought of bringing up the rabbit ball in 1977 or 1987.

I'm sure that every 10 years baseball and Rawlings find it necessary to completely change their manufacturing process and that no one, anywhere is aware of the fact that the company did this and that baseball signed off on it.

Oh, and for what it's worth, Jews flew the Wright Brothers' airplane into WTC 7.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 04:49 AM
You let me know when you find those "numerous studies" that you promised us, OK? Preferably the next one won't be sponsored by MLB itself...that might help the integrity of your argument a bit (and without integrity, none of your assumptions mean anything).

Also, for somebody who believes in the need for evidence, you sure like attributing a lot of the power increase and subsequent decrease in baseball (4 years after testing began, I should note) to PED use. Nobody has ever come close to understanding what effects these drugs have, as they've never been comprehensively studied. And nobody, of course, knows whether the testing is even working. For you to pretend that you do is asinine.

Buck
09-25-2010, 04:58 AM
The reason Rawlings' competitors didn't say anything is because they didn't want to be sued for libel for spreading mistruths.

You are pretty hard head KCC

DaFace
09-25-2010, 09:29 AM
Buck's hate for the Rockies is amusing.

tmax63
09-25-2010, 09:44 AM
Looks to me more like a pitcher not liking a particular ball which happens, depending on who's pitching, a few times an inning or a few times a game. Sometimes the ball isn't rubbed up well enough or the seams don't stand up enough or whatever makes a pitcher think that he likes this ball better than that one.

cardken
09-25-2010, 09:57 AM
amazing all the cheating that goes on, stealing signs, "juiced" balls, corked bats, steroids, and all this goes on with a blind eye turned towards it. Yet MLB has the gull to employ the word "integrity" in regards in the case of Pete Rose. Baseball is a joke, and can go away as far as I'm concerned. The League is rife with hypocrisy.

Frazod
09-25-2010, 10:39 AM
A team from Denver cheat? Never! LMAO

teedubya
09-25-2010, 11:07 AM
A team from Denver cheat? Never! LMAO

BOOM! Goes the dynamite!

teedubya
09-25-2010, 11:08 AM
I like Lincecum... it's a shame he isn't on the Royals. Fucking Hochever.

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 01:34 PM
Buck's hate for the Rockies is amusing.

ROFL It's very comical. Don't know if he is a Padres or a Giants fan, but if he is a Giants fan, he does know one of the greatest cheaters and a poster child for the steroid era is Barry Bonds. A former Giant of course.

Buck
09-25-2010, 01:58 PM
ROFL It's very comical. Don't know if he is a Padres or a Giants fan, but if he is a Giants fan, he does know one of the greatest cheaters and a poster child for the steroid era is Barry Bonds. A former Giant of course.

Hi there. Shut the fuck up dipshit.

Buck
09-25-2010, 01:59 PM
Buck's hate for the Rockies is amusing.

I hate them because they fucking cheat. Just like you hate the Broncos because they continually cheat (Crisco? Dangerous chop blocks?)

Rain Man
09-25-2010, 02:00 PM
No offense, but the girl in that video is quite unattractive.

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:01 PM
Looks to me more like a pitcher not liking a particular ball which happens, depending on who's pitching, a few times an inning or a few times a game. Sometimes the ball isn't rubbed up well enough or the seams don't stand up enough or whatever makes a pitcher think that he likes this ball better than that one.

No, that is not the case.

A ball that has intentionally been left out of the humidor will dry up, making the leather harder on the outside, which a pitcher can feel. That's clearly what happened here, not the mud on the ball.

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:02 PM
amazing all the cheating that goes on, stealing signs, "juiced" balls, corked bats, steroids, and all this goes on with a blind eye turned towards it. Yet MLB has the gull to employ the word "integrity" in regards in the case of Pete Rose. Baseball is a joke, and can go away as far as I'm concerned. The League is rife with hypocrisy.

Remember when the Rockies bitched and complained that the Phillies were cheating earlier this year? I hope they get reprimanded by the MLB for this ball issue. Karma's a bitch.

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 02:13 PM
Hi there. Shut the **** up dipshit.

There you go attacking me for no reason. I'm not gay and I'm not the one who spurned your advances at the bar (blue oyster I presume). Why so bitter?

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:16 PM
There you go attacking me for no reason. I'm not gay and I'm not the one who spurned your advances at the bar (blue oyster I presume). Why so bitter?

I'm not a fucking Giants fan, douchebag.

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 02:17 PM
No offense, but the girl in that video is quite unattractive.

ROFL. That girl is one of the most dominant pitchers in baseball, but he could use a haircut.

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 02:19 PM
I'm not a ****ing Giants fan, douchebag.

Which is why I stated, "I don't know if he is a Giants fan or not". Your vocabulary appears to be severly limited.

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:20 PM
Which is why I stated, "I don't know if he is a Giants fan or not". Your vocabulary appears to be severly limited.

So you mean its okay to talk shit about someone if you don't know the facts, as long as you state you don't know the facts before you talk shit?

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 02:29 PM
So you mean its okay to talk shit about someone if you don't know the facts, as long as you state you don't know the facts before you talk shit?

I didn't know that qualified as shit talk. The obvious gay references, yes. What I'll likely direct at you from this point onward (due to your inability to not be a pric* toward me. I've have no idea why?), yes. But I was led to believe you were a Giants fan from the video (I guess I should have know you were a Padres fan??? Since you root for the Chargers). I was simply stating that "if" you were a Giants fan, that would be ironic. A simple, "I'm not a Giants fan" would have sufficed. Instead you continue with personal attacks.

Buck
09-25-2010, 02:32 PM
I didn't know that qualified as shit talk. The obvious gay references, yes. What I'll likely direct at you from this point onward (due to your inability to not be a pric* toward me. I've have no idea why?), yes. But I was led to believe you were a Giants fan from the video (I guess I should have know you were a Padres fan??? Since you root for the Chargers). I was simply stating that "if" you were a Giants fan, that would be ironic. A simple, "I'm not a Giants fan" would have sufficed. Instead you continue with personal attacks.

You've been a shitty poster since day one, and you've always talked shit on me. It's funny you are defending the Rockies here with your only argument is that the Giants had the biggest cheater of all time on their team.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 02:33 PM
Bonds never even cheated. Steroids weren't against the rules of baseball when he supposedly used. The Rockies however? They might be.

Valiant
09-25-2010, 02:34 PM
Meh, we use juiced balls depending on who we are playing in softball.. Have to because the other teams are using them as well..

Which is funny because we also use dead balls depending on how many homers we hit.. Then I have found a gap in the rule book.. It does not state anything about stickem on a bat barrel.. So teams are starting to use that also..

It is going to come down elementary rules sometime and teams have to use the balls and bat the ref provides.. Because if you are not cheating you are not winning..

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 02:38 PM
You've been a shitty poster since day one, and you've always talked shit on me. It's funny you are defending the Rockies here with your only argument is that the Giants had the biggest cheater of all time on their team.

I asked you before and I'll ask you again. Find the posts where I was shitty to you on this site. You failed to find it last time. I'll be you won't try this time either. I don't need to defend the Rockies, you have no evidence that they are cheating. Tim didn't like the ball, sent it back. Nothing more. Balls are given to the Umps a couple at a time. How could this even be worked out to where the Giants would get the "juiced" balls. Are the umps in on it. You don't like Colorado teams. I get it, but there is no conspiracy here.

WoodDraw
09-25-2010, 03:16 PM
Well that solves that.


The Rockies can no longer monitor the entire process of using humidor balls, the San Francisco Chronicle learned. In the ninth year of the humidor era, Major League Baseball took a big step today in overseeing the process.

Starting tonight, the umpires will have more say in keeping their eyes on balls transported from the humidor to the Rockies' dugout to the umpires' ball pouch to the pitcher's hand.

The Giants filed a complaint late last night with MLB, and MLB acted.

"We did get a complaint from the Giants," MLB spokesman Pat Courtney said. "There's going to be a change to the protocal. From the point balls come out of the humidor to the umpires' room and into the dugout, there will be visual inspected at all times."

Regarding the Giants' complaint, Courtney said, "They said there was a concern about the procedings, so we changed them."


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/giants/detail?entry_id=73157#ixzz10ZfEGLCu

Buck
09-25-2010, 03:19 PM
Well that solves that.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS IF THERE WAS NO FOUL PLAY!

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:20 PM
Also, for somebody who believes in the need for evidence, you sure like attributing a lot of the power increase and subsequent decrease in baseball (4 years after testing began, I should note) to PED use. Nobody has ever come close to understanding what effects these drugs have, as they've never been comprehensively studied.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LUbspKPMw-Q/Rshopu96o7I/AAAAAAAAA64/1JWfReOv2oc/s400/ben_johnson03.jpg

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 03:53 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LUbspKPMw-Q/Rshopu96o7I/AAAAAAAAA64/1JWfReOv2oc/s400/ben_johnson03.jpg
I'm not denying that PEDs have an effect on athletes. The problem is that the effect has never been able to be quantified by anybody. Either way, I'm not sure what posting all of those PED users at Seoul proves as it regards to baseball and its increased power levels from 93-2007.

For the record, by the way, Carl Lewis shouldn't have that gold medal. He wouldn't have even been in the competition if the USOC didn't cover up his positive test prior to the Games.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:55 PM
Carl Lewis tested positive for a stimulant, not Winstrol, FWIW.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 03:57 PM
As far as PED effects, in baseball it's quite simple.

Mass*Velocity.

A stronger individual is able to swing a baseball bat at a higher speed. Steroids not only help to add strength, but they decrease fatigue.

Swinging an object with a fixed mass (say a bat) at a higher rate of speed will lead to it launching the object it hits a greater distance, which means more homers.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 04:01 PM
Carl Lewis tested positive for a stimulant, not Winstrol, FWIW.
Like it matters. Lewis wouldn't have even been there if the USOC was on the level.

Lewis was on all kinds of shit, though. They all were (and still are...anybody that thinks Usain Bolt can do what he is doing without PEDs is kidding themselves). Really, Ben Johnson became the scapegoat for an entire era. That race, in fact, led to anabolics being placed on the controlled substances list in this country soon after (despite opposition from professionals at the FDA, AMA, and DEA). And steroids still haven't escaped that stigma yet.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 04:04 PM
As far as PED effects, in baseball it's quite simple.

Mass*Velocity.

A stronger individual is able to swing a baseball bat at a higher speed. Steroids not only help to add strength, but they decrease fatigue.

Swinging an object with a fixed mass (say a bat) at a higher rate of speed will lead to it launching the object it hits a greater distance, which means more homers.
I've never disputed any of this. But you let me know when somebody is able to scientifically quantify the effect that PEDs have on HR totals, OK?

OnTheWarpath58
09-25-2010, 04:07 PM
Bonds never even cheated. Steroids weren't against the rules of baseball when he supposedly used.

*buzzer*

Wrong.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3

The A's returned to the World Series in 1989, beating the Giants, and again in 1990, losing to the Reds. Their dominance caused talk among players and doctors and front-office execs: had Oakland acquired an unfair edge? Wenzlaff continued to hide in plain sight around the Coliseum. If anyone asked what he did, he'd flash a card from his new business: Lakeview Auto Radio. He never sold steroids at the ballpark. He didn't have to. As the grapevine spread his name, he got calls from men he'd never met. By 1991, he was supplying 20 to 30 MLB players and 10 NFL players. He often flew to their homes with a few thousand dollars' worth of Deca or Parabolin in vials he'd wrap in tin foil and stuff into shoes in his luggage.

A year earlier Congress had raised penalties for possessing those and 25 other anabolics. But now the stuff violated baseball's rules, too. On June 7, 1991, commissioner Fay Vincent sent a memo to each team and the players union that stated: "The possession, sale or use of any illegal drug or controlled substance by Major League players or personnel is strictly prohibited ... This prohibition applies to all illegal drugs ... including steroids." The seven-page document didn't cover random testing -- that had to be bargained with the union -- but it did outline treatment and penalties.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 04:16 PM
*buzzer*

Wrong.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/story?page=steroids&num=3

It still amazes me how many times I've had to type the following words to the ignorant:

Memos sent by commissioners don't change rules. Agreements with the MLBPA do.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 05:12 PM
I've never disputed any of this. But you let me know when somebody is able to scientifically quantify the effect that PEDs have on HR totals, OK?

It was scientifically quantified in Newton's laws of motion. You shouldn't need this explained to you. Greater strength = greater bat speed= greater batted ball distances.

Amazingly, in any batted ball sport, whether baseball, golf, or cricket, the faster one swings the bat, the faster the struck object travels.

I know it's groundbreaking. If you'd like some ice chips and donut to sit on, I'll call a candy striper.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:14 PM
Where is this hard evidence that PEDs made a significant difference in performance for these players?

I'm waiting.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 05:17 PM
It still amazes me how many times I've had to type the following words to the ignorant:

Memos sent by commissioners don't change rules. Agreements with the MLBPA do.

An absence of testing does not mean there were not bans on the substance.

They were added to the banned list in 1991.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:19 PM
An absence of testing does not mean there were not bans on the substance.

They were added to the banned list in 1991.

If you don't have an agreed drug policy with your own players, you certainly don't have a meaningful banned list.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 05:19 PM
Where is this hard evidence that PEDs made a significant difference in performance for these players?

I'm waiting.

Every world record in every strength and endurance sport since 1960, for one.

Let's see, they allow you to throw a shotput farther, a discus farther, run faster, jump higher, lift more weight, swim faster, jump farther, but they don't affect how far you can hit a baseball.

For some reason, that exists outside the realm of influence of PEDs.

You're being a contrarian just for the sake of doing so.

Have fun wearing your skinny jeans and swilling Schlitz.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 05:21 PM
If you don't have an agreed drug policy with your own players, you certainly don't have a meaningful banned list.

Now you're arguing semantics. They were banned by baseball in 1991. This is well established and inarguable, so rather than admit that you don't know what you are talking about, you are trying to deflect to irrelevant definitions as to their policy.

FWIW, my job does not have a personal conduct policy. Rest assured, I am not allowed to murder people while at said job.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:22 PM
Every world record in every strength and endurance sport since 1960, for one.

Let's see, they allow you to throw a shotput farther, a discus farther, run faster, jump higher, lift more weight, swim faster, jump farther, but they don't affect how far you can hit a baseball.

I've never disputed any of those things, or that they don't help you hit a baseball farther. What I'm asking you to do is scientifically quantify how much they help athletes. And you can't do it because nobody actually knows.


You're being a contrarian just for the sake of doing so.

You sure you aren't referring to your MO on this forum?

alanm
09-25-2010, 05:23 PM
They ain't doing it right since they've lost 5 in a row now. :spock:

Buck
09-25-2010, 05:25 PM
If steroids don't help you hit a ball further, then why do MLB players take them?

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:25 PM
Now you're arguing semantics. They were banned by baseball in 1991. This is well established and inarguable, so rather than admit that you don't know what you are talking about, you are trying to deflect to irrelevant definitions as to their policy.

I'm still trying to understand how you ban a drug in a sport without a drug policy. Rules can't be changed in baseball without agreement from the MLBPA.


FWIW, my job does not have a personal conduct policy. Rest assured, I am not allowed to murder people while at said job.
That would be a violation of the law, not of the rules of your job. Just as taking steroids without a prescription was in the 90s for those players.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:27 PM
If steroids don't help you hit a ball further, then why do MLB players take them?
They do help you hit the ball further...the question is how much?

Buck
09-25-2010, 05:27 PM
I'm still trying to understand how you ban a drug in a sport without a drug policy. Rules can't be changed in baseball without agreement from the MLBPA.


That would be a violation of the law, not of the rules of your job. Just as taking steroids without a prescription was in the 90s for those players.

I think he would get fired from his job if he murdered somebody

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:28 PM
I think he would get fired from his job if he murdered somebody
But that wouldn't have anything to do with him breaking a rule from his job, though.

Buck
09-25-2010, 05:28 PM
They do help you hit the ball further...the question is how much?

If the answer is 1 foot, thats 12 fucking inches too many.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:32 PM
If the answer is 1 foot, thats 12 ****ing inches too many.

Too many? I take it you don't like home runs?


WHAT THE **** ARE YOU ARGUING FOR?
Because there just isn't enough evidence out there on steroids, PEDs, and their effects on performance in baseball to be speaking in absolutes about any of it.

OnTheWarpath58
09-25-2010, 05:34 PM
If you don't have an agreed drug policy with your own players, you certainly don't have a meaningful banned list.

:facepalm:

Buck
09-25-2010, 05:34 PM
Too many? I take it you don't like home runs?


Because there just isn't enough evidence out there on steroids, PEDs, and their effects on performance in baseball to be speaking in absolutes about any of it.

I don't give a shit about home runs.

I care about the integrity of the game and seeing the best team win.

I watched the 1999 World Series on ESPN Classic yesterday and I was totally furious watching it because I knew Clemens, who was dominating, was roided out of his ass.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:35 PM
:facepalm:
We could also get into the discussion of how MLB basically encouraged steroid use among its players after that worthless memo, but I'm sure you're already aware of that.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 05:39 PM
I don't give a shit about home runs.

I care about the integrity of the game and seeing the best team win.

I watched the 1999 World Series on ESPN Classic yesterday and I was totally furious watching it because I knew Clemens, who was dominating, was roided out of his ass.
Every WS game since the 1960s has featured baseball players using PEDs (whether it be greenies, steroids, HGH, SARMs, what have you). If baseball was ever a "clean game of integrity," it stopped being one a long time ago.

My advice is to stop worrying about it, like you probably have in football (where a majority of the players we watch every week are on some kind of drug).

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:02 PM
I'm still trying to understand how you ban a drug in a sport without a drug policy. Rules can't be changed in baseball without agreement from the MLBPA.


That would be a violation of the law, not of the rules of your job. Just as taking steroids without a prescription was in the 90s for those players.

And yet, on top of that, MLB still had a policy banning them.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:03 PM
I think he would get fired from his job if he murdered somebody

If I murdered KC after showing them this thread, I'd probably get a raise.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:11 PM
And yet, on top of that, MLB still had a policy banning them.
You can't ban drugs in a sport without a drug policy.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:18 PM
If I murdered KC after showing them this thread, I'd probably get a raise.
http://i44.tinypic.com/x1imfc.jpg

Exposing your level of scientific and statistical ignorance isn't any reason to get upset there, Hamas. You've still got your self-proclaimed baseball expert title to fall back on.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:21 PM
There was a policy, it was set forth from the commissioner's office. That is inarguable.

An absence of testing does not mean such substances are not banned, nor does it mean such a policy was never in place.

It is illegal for my wife to go to work on PCP. That said, she is not tested for it. The absence of testing does not connote an absence of a policy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:23 PM
Exposing your level of scientific and statistical ignorance isn't any reason to get upset there, Hamas. You've still got your self-proclaimed baseball expert title to fall back on.

The only problem is I'm the only one linking scientific studies. You're linking advocacy websites. If you can't tell the difference between those two, no amount of education can overcome your lack of intelligence.

Here's another study provided by Berkeley about the steroid era and various increases in performance.

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/rjmorgan/mba211/steroids%20and%20major%20league%20baseball.pdf

Now, please don't click on this link and lie saying that you've read it so that you can continue to maintain the facade of bullshit you've constructed throughout this thread.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:23 PM
There was a policy, it was set forth from the commissioner's office. That is inarguable.

A drug policy can only be established in baseball with the agreement of the player's association. If you don't have that, you don't have an established rule. And without a rule, nobody's cheating at all.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:26 PM
FWIW, Baseball has an antitrust exemption from the United States government. They adopted their steroid ban after anabolic steroids were banned by the US in 1990.

Thus, that becomes the "policy". If baseball did not have such a ban, they would lose their antitrust exemption.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:30 PM
The only problem is I'm the only one linking scientific studies.

We've already exposed the flaws in your first study, the biggest problem being that it was funded by MLB itself.


You're linking advocacy websites. If you can't tell the difference between those two, no amount of education can overcome your lack of intelligence.

That website has links to both studies from URI and Penn State.



Here's another study provided by Berkeley about the steroid era and various increases in performance.

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/rjmorgan/mba211/steroids%20and%20major%20league%20baseball.pdf

Now, please don't click on this link and lie saying that you've read it so that you can continue to maintain the facade of bullshit you've constructed throughout this thread.
I haven't read that, but a quick read through tells me that they didn't do anything groundbreaking there (and pretty much ignored the other possible factors in increased offensive performance in baseball during the "steroid years"), and certainly weren't able to scientifically quantify the effects of steroids on home runs.

This assumption, in particular made me laugh:

Using this method, we compared the OPS for players in the Pre-Steroids Era to the OPS for players in the Steroids Era. We defined the Pre-Steroids Era as 1985 to 1993 and the Steroids Era as 1994 to 2004.

Steroids have been used in baseball long before even 1985 and continue to be used to this day.

Buck
09-25-2010, 06:32 PM
You are a fucking retard dude.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:33 PM
You are a ****ing retard dude.
From the guy who has proven himself incredibly naive and closed-minded about the sports he watches every day.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:34 PM
We've already exposed the flaws in your first study, the biggest problem being that it was funded by MLB itself.


That website has links to both studies from URI and Penn State.



I haven't read that, but a quick read through tells me that they didn't do anything groundbreaking there (and pretty much ignored the other possible factors in increased offensive performance in baseball during the "steroid years"), and certainly weren't able to scientifically quantify the effects of steroids on home runs.

This assumption, in particular made me laugh:



Steroids have been used in baseball long before even 1985 and continue to be used to this day.


What do you know, he resorts to quote mining.

"This study has been posted in the last five minutes, but I know enough to completely disregard it because of this one quote that I took out of context. Instead, I'll rely on an shittily-formatted HTML page, and ignore the fact that funding for a study does not axiomatically mean that the results will be manipulated to suit the desired outcomes of those commissioning a study, and that I can't take the time to actually read the outcomes or methodology of the study."

But yes, I'm sure that you are able to completely eviscerate a study performed by Cal Berkeley in the time of a Katy Perry song.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:35 PM
Increase in OPS with Steroids
We used two methods to determine the effect of steroids on a player’s OPS. The first method we
call the “All Player” method. Using this method, we compared the OPS for players in the Pre-
Steroids Era to the OPS for players in the Steroids Era. We defined the Pre-Steroids Era as 1985
to 1993 and the Steroids Era as 1994 to 2004. While it is hard to choose an exact year that
baseball crossed from one era to the next, we felt that steroids had begun to enter baseball in the
late 1980s, and by 1994 had spread throughout the league. While few steroids related events
were evident prior to 1994, from that point on steroids in the news and allegations of steroids
rose dramatically (Assael 2005). 2005 is not included in the Steroids Era, as the league, with
pressure from Congress and the public, began to take a harder stance against performance
enhancing drugs, and we believe steroid use fell. Or as ESPN’s Peter Gammons put it prior to
the 2005 season, the “Post-steroids era begins now (Gammons 2005).”
Once we had chosen our two timeframes to compare, we collected the OPS for all players in the
major leagues for those years. We omitted players with fewer than 100 at bats in a season so as
not to include pitchers or players with limited affect on the game in those years. We found that
the average OPS in the Pre-Steroids Era was .736, .048 less than the average OPS in the Steroids
Era, .784. Since this comparison includes both users and nonusers, it is systematically biased
low.

Source: The Baseball Archive Database (http://www.baseball1.com) and CBS Sportsline (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/stats)


The second method we used to determine the effect of steroids on OPS was what we called the
“Steroid Seven” method. We looked at seven players who have either admitted to or been
accused of using steroids, or the general perception of them by the general public is of a steroids
user. Rather than compare these players’ performance in the two eras, we chose to look at their
performance during the last few years of the Steroids Era (2001-2004) and compare that to 2005,
the first year of the Post-Steroids Era. While not all players saw a significant change in OPS
over this time period, the average change in OPS was a decrease of .160.
While there is no exact way to determine the effect of steroids on OPS, we believe that the
average of our two methods is a good approximation.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:35 PM
What do you know, he resorts to quote mining.

"This study has been posted in the last five minutes, but I know enough to completely disregard it because of this one quote that I took out of context. Instead, I'll rely on an shittily-formatted HTML page, and ignore the fact that funding for a study does not axiomatically mean that the results will be manipulated to suit the desired outcomes of those commissioning a study, and that I can't take the time to actually read the outcomes or methodology of the study."

But yes, I'm sure that you are able to completely eviscerate a study performed by Cal Berkeley in the time of a Katy Perry song.

Why don't you summarize it for us, then, Hamas? I assume you've read it, right?

Buck
09-25-2010, 06:36 PM
From the guy who has proven himself incredibly naive and closed-minded about the sports he watches every day.

What does that mean? Since I don't want players to roid that means I am close-minded? I'm naive because I don't think every single player takes PEDs?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:36 PM
Why don't you summarize it for us, then, Hamas? I assume you've read it, right?

Why don't you check the above quote. Also, why don't you continue to deflect.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:40 PM
Increase in OPS with Steroids
We used two methods to determine the effect of steroids on a player’s OPS. The first method we
call the “All Player” method. Using this method, we compared the OPS for players in the Pre-
Steroids Era to the OPS for players in the Steroids Era. We defined the Pre-Steroids Era as 1985
to 1993 and the Steroids Era as 1994 to 2004. While it is hard to choose an exact year that
baseball crossed from one era to the next, we felt that steroids had begun to enter baseball in the
late 1980s, and by 1994 had spread throughout the league. While few steroids related events
were evident prior to 1994, from that point on steroids in the news and allegations of steroids
rose dramatically (Assael 2005). 2005 is not included in the Steroids Era, as the league, with
pressure from Congress and the public, began to take a harder stance against performance
enhancing drugs, and we believe steroid use fell. Or as ESPN’s Peter Gammons put it prior to
the 2005 season, the “Post-steroids era begins now (Gammons 2005).”
Once we had chosen our two timeframes to compare, we collected the OPS for all players in the
major leagues for those years. We omitted players with fewer than 100 at bats in a season so as
not to include pitchers or players with limited affect on the game in those years. We found that
the average OPS in the Pre-Steroids Era was .736, .048 less than the average OPS in the Steroids
Era, .784. Since this comparison includes both users and nonusers, it is systematically biased
low.
0.700
0.725
0.750
0.775
0.800
0.825
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
OPS
Pre-Steroids Era
Steroids Era
Source: The Baseball Archive Database (http://www.baseball1.com) and CBS Sportsline (http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/stats)
The second method we used to determine the effect of steroids on OPS was what we called the
“Steroid Seven” method. We looked at seven players who have either admitted to or been
accused of using steroids, or the general perception of them by the general public is of a steroids
user. Rather than compare these players’ performance in the two eras, we chose to look at their
performance during the last few years of the Steroids Era (2001-2004) and compare that to 2005,
the first year of the Post-Steroids Era. While not all players saw a significant change in OPS
over this time period, the average change in OPS was a decrease of .160.
While there is no exact way to determine the effect of steroids on OPS, we believe that the
average of our two methods is a good approximation.

I'm still trying to understand how this any of this quantifies the effects of PEDs on baseball players. There are many factors that explain why offense increased in the years that they have poorly defined as the steroid era (1994-2005), and you mentioned several of them yesterday (expansion, smaller parks, smaller strike zones, and of course, juiced balls). This study doesn't even mention any of these explanations, so why should it be taken seriously?

Why are you providing me with conflicting information here?

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:41 PM
Why don't you check the above quote. Also, why don't you continue to deflect.
Don't be telling me to read the entirety of something that you just found in a Google search 10 minutes ago, asshole.

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 06:43 PM
A cloudless sky in the middle of the day is blue.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:46 PM
What does that mean?
Let me ask you a few questions. Are you outraged that most of the players you watch in every pro football game are using PEDs? If you aren't, why not?

What is it about guys like Roger Clemens in 1999 that makes you so angry?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:47 PM
Don't be telling me to read the entirety of something that you just found in a Google search 10 minutes ago, asshole.

What did I read:

The following:

1) The methodology
2) The bibliography
3) The summary of results and findings
4) The conclusions drawn.


Yes, that can be done in 10 minutes. What can't be done is to dismiss it outright because of the fact that it wants to test individuals from the most suspicious period.

What gall!!

But no, it's not steroids, it's not expansion, it's not the decrease in ballpark size, it's the fact that the ball was "juiced", which wouldn't require ignorance, in the case of steroids, but rather complicity not only on the part of MLB, but also all the producers and manufacturers of the materials of said baseball.

Buck
09-25-2010, 06:48 PM
Let me ask you a few questions. Are you outraged that most of the players you watch in every pro football game are using PEDs? If you aren't, why not?

What is it about guys like Roger Clemens in 1999 that makes you so angry?

Let me ask you a question. How do you know most of the players are using PEDs? I don't care about legal drugs, if thats what you are getting at.

What pisses me off is that he was knowingly cheating to win a fucking Championship. I'm a Padres and Chargers fan, and I'm pissed at guys like Caminiti and Merriman for doing what they did too.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:49 PM
"You can't quantify that a baseball will travel 8.4% farther when hit by someone on THG, therefore you can't assume that PED use would lead to more homeruns."

I also can't prove the sun won't rise tomorrow, FWIW

ohiobronco2
09-25-2010, 06:51 PM
"You can't quantify that a baseball will travel 8.4% farther when hit by someone on THG, therefore you can't assume that PED use would lead to more homeruns."

I also can't prove the sun won't rise tomorrow, FWIW

:LOL:ROFL

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:51 PM
Yes, that can be done in 10 minutes. What can't be done is to dismiss it outright because of the fact that it wants to test individuals from the most suspicious period.

I can dismiss it outright because it does nothing to scientifically quantify the effects of PEDs on baseball players, makes poor initial assumptions, and proceeds to ignore all of the other factors that resulted in the increase in offensive performance in the sport from 1994-2005.


But no, it's not steroids, it's not expansion, it's not the decrease in ballpark size, it's the fact that the ball was "juiced", which wouldn't require ignorance, in the case of steroids, but rather complicity not only on the part of MLB, but also all the producers and manufacturers of the materials of said baseball.
I think it was a combination of all of those factors (unlike your much-ballyhooed Berkeley study), but the fact that high offense in baseball continued in 2007 (well after the drug policy was in place and well after expansion was over) indicates that changes were made in the balls in 1994 and that it made a significant difference in performance levels.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:54 PM
Let me ask you a question. How do you know most of the players are using PEDs?
Because I've been a part of that culture and am aware of what goes on in it.


What pisses me off is that he was knowingly cheating to win a ****ing Championship. I'm a Padres and Chargers fan, and I'm pissed at guys like Caminiti and Merriman for doing what they did too.
You don't take any solace from the fact that they did it to keep up with their competition?

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 06:56 PM
It actually does quantify the effects on players by following them both before and after testing.

But I'm sure that baseball, which received a huge uptick in popularity when balls were leaving the yard, now wants fewer homers and more lower scoring games, since so many people are a fan of soccer in this country.

Obviously, that's why they'd only "juice" the balls from 1994-2007. Fortunately, no other thing was going on during this time, no players report huge performance gains personally, and the laws of physics also don't apply to the swinging of a bat while using PEDs.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 06:59 PM
It actually does quantify the effects on players by following them both before and after testing.

No, it really doesn't do anything of the sort. Comparing the OPS's of different poorly defined eras doesn't quantify the effects of PEDs.


But I'm sure that baseball, which received a huge uptick in popularity when balls were leaving the yard, now wants fewer homers and more lower scoring games, since so many people are a fan of soccer in this country.
Baseball has incentive to show that their drug policy is working.

Buck
09-25-2010, 07:00 PM
Because I've been a part of that culture and am aware of what goes on in it.


You don't take any solace from the fact that they did it to keep up with their competition?

You are a complete moron.

You are acting like every single professional athlete doesn't have morals.

You are sounding so stupid that half the time I see you post shit I misread it because it is so stupid.

I'm putting you on ignore now because I'm done arguing and I don't want to read stupid shit anymore.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 07:01 PM
I also love how Hamas (and also this study) have completely ignored the other half of the sport that uses PEDs, pitchers. I'd love to see an attempt at quantifying how steroids help you pitch better.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 07:03 PM
You are acting like every single professional athlete doesn't have morals.

Morals, haha? Social morals aren't absolute, they are relative.


I'm putting you on ignore now because I'm done arguing and I don't want to read stupid shit anymore.
Knock yourself out. My last piece of advice, though, is to open your mind.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 07:19 PM
I also love how Hamas (and also this study) have completely ignored the other half of the sport that uses PEDs, pitchers. I'd love to see an attempt at quantifying how steroids help you pitch better.

It helps you both recover and throw at higher velocities. This isn't exactly groundbreaking information.

Here's another.

If people were always on roids, then why did this oh-so-horrible study also point out the fact that during the "Steroid Era" not only did trips to the DL increase markedly, but the average stay was lengthened greatly, and on top of that, a massive increase in injuries that are most notably attributed to steroids only began after the most notorious era for their usage.

I'll save you the time of the reply. Just post this:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BvTNyKIGXiI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BvTNyKIGXiI?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Buck
09-25-2010, 07:20 PM
KC_Connection's dad is Victor Conte

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 07:23 PM
KC_Connection's dad is Victor Conte

I didn't know troglodytes had names.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 07:24 PM
It helps you both recover and throw at higher velocities. This isn't exactly groundbreaking information.

Of course. But how much does it help? That's what I've been asking here repeatedly for the last two days, with no actual response, because nobody has ever been able to scientifically quantify it.


If people were always on roids, then why did this oh-so-horrible study also point out the fact that during the "Steroid Era" not only did trips to the DL increase markedly, but the average stay was lengthened greatly, and on top of that, a massive increase in injuries that are most notably attributed to steroids only began after the most notorious era for their usage.
I've never doubted that more players started using steroids in the 90s than ever before. That observation makes me wonder why fans have never assumed guys like Griffey used, though.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 07:26 PM
KC_Connection's dad is Victor Conte
Never met him, though I know people who have.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-25-2010, 07:28 PM
Of course. But how much does it help? That's what I've been asking here repeatedly for the last two days, with no actual response, because nobody has ever been able to scientifically quantify it.


I've never doubted that more players started using steroids in the 90s than ever before. That observation makes me wonder why fans have never assumed guys like Griffey used, though.

The lack of demonstrable change in his body and hat size, the marked decline of his abilities once he hit 35 are some of the most obvious reasons.

Shockingly, you haven't had laboratory studies done on substances banned for the last 20 years in order to test their efficacy in a game in which their use is banned. Why? I don't know.

That said, I'm waiting to go down to Quintiles to sign up for their speedball study so they can figure out just exactly how much does snorting an entire 8 ball and then chasing the dragon fuck you up.

KC_Connection
09-25-2010, 07:34 PM
The lack of demonstrable change in his body and hat size, the marked decline of his abilities once he hit 35 are some of the most obvious reasons.

Plenty of users that have been caught in recent years showed no demonstrable change in body size. But they still used.


Shockingly, you haven't had laboratory studies done on substances banned for the last 20 years in order to test their efficacy in a game in which their use is banned. Why? I don't know.
Until they do, though, making assumptions about the ultimate effectiveness of PEDs is intellectually and scientifically irresponsible. Unfortunately we have journalists and fans doing it every day.