What to Asterisk? *

[nanwynnfan]

Asterisk absolutely nothing. The "Game" will be just fine, thank you, with more expansion ahead of us, more eyes on increasing numbers of large flat screen [to the glee of Corning investors, and probably a more 'roid free playing of the game before increasing numbers in live attendance.

Somewhere in one of these threads, I listed players from all decades since 1900 who had outstanding seasons at ages 35-40+; and in the modern age of better nutrition, physical training, and surgical repair, enhanced physical performance at at augmented plateaus of chronological age should be increasingly expected, rather than causes of shock and awe.

Hand-eye coordination, timing, reflexes, stroke and bat speed must be combined almost flawlessly in order to made effective contact with a pitched baseball; and, from what I've read, steroids have not supplanted carrots and lutein as major sources of maximized vision function, nor are they particularly in harmony with patience at the plate and discipline in managing the strike zone.

If players using 'roids are given 8'-40' of added distance on well-hit baseballs, then baseball architects have met them half way with shrinking park dimensions. Then, too, creatine and other non-banned substances can also add weight, drive and muscle strength for the 8'-40' generated by bat speed.

Prognosis: Baseball bruised. Cool it. Give it a rest. Back full force in 2008.

[Grandstander]

nan:

Hand-eye coordination, timing, reflexes, stroke and bat speed must be combined almost flawlessly in order to made effective contact with a pitched baseball; and, from what I've read, steroids have not supplanted carrots and lutein as major sources of maximized vision function, nor are they particularly in harmony with patience at the plate and discipline in managing the strike zone.

As with jtur, you have simply decided to overlook the evidence of performance. Just a coincidence...all those unprecedented homerun rates, all those 50 plus homerun seasons, all six of the 60 plus homeruns seasons....must have been players doubling up on the Wheaties you conclude.

How many anvils must be dropped on some heads before the obvious is recognized?

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

nan:


As with jtur, you have simply decided to overlook the evidence of performance. Just a coincidence...all those unprecedented homerun rates, all those 50 plus homerun seasons, all six of the 60 plus homeruns seasons....must have been players doubling up on the Wheaties you conclude.

How many anvils must be dropped on some heads before the obvious is recognized?

No anvils [and please NOTE, no personal attacks, even by innuendo, in fine print] ... just the realization that MLB is a super-competitive sport/business/media attraction/entertainment/cash cow ... and that many have fed at the well.

The obvious is simply that baseball will go on and on. Some humans will move right along with it; and some others will scan stat sheets; crunch age regressions to norms; burn midnight oils studying chemical compounds, the law, the unspoken law, the suggested rules; and preparing lectures on competitive morality and shortcomings in human perception.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

The obvious is simply that baseball will go on and on. Some humans will move right along with it; and some others will scan stat sheets; crunch age regressions to norms; burn midnight oils studying chemical compounds, the law, the unspoken law, the suggested rules; and preparing lectures on competitive morality and shortcomings in human perception.

If your reaction is...."I don't care", then why not just post "I don't care?"

I care. I think it stunk. I value the numbers from baseball and I'm hardly alone. Baseball stats are a big part of the love of the game for lots of people, not just some handful of number crunchers. Discussions about which players were the greatest of all time are widespread, not limited to the Sabermetric community. Stats are the tools for fueling these discussions.

The steroid users have crapped on the stats. They have crapped on all those discussions.

Further, they are thieves, aren't they? How many of them were able to parlay their artificial performances into larger contracts because they appeared to be legitimate stars? How many who refused to go along with the cheating suffered lower value contracts as a consequence because their performances no longer seemed up to par? How many who did not use, failed to make it to the bigs at all because they were beaten out by the steroid using sluggers?

But....no big deal you say.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

If your reaction is...."I don't care", then why not just post "I don't care?"

I care. I think it stunk. I value the numbers from baseball and I'm hardly alone. Baseball stats are a big part of the love of the game for lots of people, not just some handful of number crunchers. Discussions about which players were the greatest of all time are widespread, not limited to the Sabermetric community. Stats are the tools for fueling these discussions.

The steroid users have crapped on the stats. They have crapped on all those discussions.

Further, they are thieves, aren't they? How many of them were able to parlay their artificial performances into larger contracts because they appeared to be legitimate stars? How many who refused to go along with the cheating suffered lower value contracts as a consequence because their performances no longer seemed up to par? How many who did not use, failed to make it to the bigs at all because they were beaten out by the steroid using sluggers?

But....no big deal you say.

Let's boil this down to one very simple question, requiring NO deep moral ruminations or extended cosmological or ethical ponderings:

-Is Barry Bonds one of the 10 greatest outfielders ever to play the game?

-Is Roger Clemens among the top 10 pitchers in MLB history?

Deal .... or no deal?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Let's boil this down to one very simple question, requiring NO deep moral ruminations or extended cosmological or ethical ponderings:

-Is Barry Bonds one of the 10 greatest outfielders ever to play the game?

-Is Roger Clemens among the top 10 pitchers in MLB history?

Deal .... or no deal?

Because of steroids, it is now impossible to say. Part of one's ranking on the Aall time lists is composed of how well the player sustained his excellence into the later years of his career. We are denied the true picture for Bonds and Clemens.

I don't understand why you think the above would be some sweeping settlement of the issue. One big complaint is that the cheaters have made it impossible to evaluate their actual merit places among all who have come before...and you propose to settle this by asking for the answer to the very question which their cheating has made impossible to answer.

Huh?

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Because of steroids, it is now impossible to say. Part of one's ranking on the Aall time lists is composed of how well the player sustained his excellence into the later years of his career. We are denied the true picture for Bonds and Clemens.

I don't understand why you think the above would be some sweeping settlement of the issue. One big complaint is that the cheaters have made it impossible to evaluate their actual merit places among all who have come before...and you propose to settle this by asking for the answer to the very question which their cheating has made impossible to answer.

Huh?

Okay then let me address the issue on your own terms:

Part 1. The age argument, the 180 degree departure from "roobing the cradle," that the likes of Bonds and Clemens have conspired to cheat the age regression, Markhov Chain, standard deviation crowd from a clear appreciation of their expected decrepitude, which conveniently fails to consider the larger picture of actuarial life expectancy [and reasonably, relative physical well-being] since the times of W. Johnson, Cobb, Ruth, Williams, etc.

It further fails to consider the fact that since at least 1960 MLB and its depths of talent can not be superimposed on 192os, '30s or '40s population census numbers, because baseball is competing more and more with football and basketball [the latter booming after the 1950s; the former always there, but also booming since Super Bowl 1]; soccer, the relative upstart, and individual sports that have become professionalized, with even amateur competitions carrying huge prize incentives. Expansion further dimiishes the depth of the talent pool; and most students of the game agree that pitching depth has suffered most.

Which segues indirectly into your complaint #2, which might be addressed to the detriment of Bonds' [and ALL other hitters'] side of the ledger:

-lowered mound;
-shrunken ballparks;
-individualized ump strike zones already shrunken from the TSW era letters or armpits to mid-lower knee;

.... and to the detriment of the pitchers' side in that, aside from the facts that coaches, fans, agents and front offices love long ball, the decline in overall batting skills, which I would personally argue may be traced to several factors, some having made both positive and negative contributions to the game:

-Little League, with early years of oversized "ringers" overpowering hitters and getting inflated confirmation that power is all on the mound;

-aluminum bats, convincing toddlers of their overwhelming bat speed and power, only to learn that wood makes a difference in bat speed and ball distance;

And yet, for all the sturm und drang and emotional moralizing, .260 seems to be the Black Hole of overall batting; 40 connotes power in the HR column; 20 is astounding wins; = < 3 BB/9 IP is decent control; < 4.00 is a solid ERA.

Of course the complete game and the shutout are vanishing because big, strong pitchers are wrapped in the protective bunting of pitch counts and 6 innings is indicative of mastery.

I also thought that extended [or any, for that matter] 'roid use was supposed to have, as a significant side effect, subjection to injury, which might be considered career shortening, for which neither Bonds nor Clemerns would be poster boys.

[nanwynnfan]

delete: duplicated quote of another's post ... response already in thread.

[jtur88]

It must have been some kind of illegal juice responsible for the sudden explosion in stolen bases, with Wills, Brock, Henderson. Fourteen of the 15 highest SB totals occurring after 1961. It just HAD to be some kind of drugs---nothing else could have possibly accounted for it.

Would that also be a fair contention?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It must have been some kind of illegal juice responsible for the sudden explosion in stolen bases, with Wills, Brock, Henderson. Fourteen of the 15 highest SB totals occurring after 1961. It just HAD to be some kind of drugs---nothing else could have possibly accounted for it.

Would that also be a fair contention?

Everyone knows it was those illegal rabbit shoes. Plus starting in 1961, they jacked up the basepaths.

[Grandstander]

nan:

Which segues indirectly into your complaint #2, which might be addressed to the detriment of Bonds' [and ALL other hitters'] side of the ledger:

-lowered mound;
-shrunken ballparks;

Segues, then flies off in a random direction. Bonds didn't gain some advantage between 1998 and 1999 from a league wide lowering of mounds, did he? They last lowered the mound in 1969, in time to benefit Bobby Bonds, not Barry.

And in 2000, Bonds moved to a ballpark which has played as one of the tougher stadiums for homeruns.

[nanwynnfan]

A lowered mound is a lowered mound - it's geometry, not time. Seems your latter statement argues FOR Barry.

[bedir than average]

How did Barrry not figure out to take advantage of the lowered mound in his first dozen years?

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

A lowered mound is a lowered mound - it's geometry, not time. Seems your latter statement argues FOR Barry.

Actually it seems like you are having difficulty staying focused on the issue being discussed. The evidence is Barry before vs Barry after....he was not helped or hurt in his transformation from superstar in his prime, to much bigger superstar in his decline years, by the height of the mound. It was the same height before and after, and consequently, has zippo to do with what we are discussing.

[nanwynnfan]

Do you mean THIS dozen years?

With headings, L-R:

Year..Age..Team.LG..G..AB..HR..BA/OB%/SLG...Awards [SS=Silver Slugger]


1986 21 PIT NL 113 413 16 .223 .330 .416 RoY-6

1987 22 PIT NL 150 551 25 .261 .329 .492

1988 23 PIT NL 144 538 24 .283 .368 .491

1989 24 PIT NL 159 580 34 .248 .351 .426

1990 25 PIT NL 151 519 33 .301 .406 .565 ;SS, MVP-1,AS

1991 26 PIT NL 153 510 28 5 .292 .410 .514 ;SS, MVP-2

1992 27 PIT NL 140 473 36 .311 .456 .624 ;SS,MVP-1,AS

1993 28 SFG NL 159 539 46 .336 .458 .677 ;SS,MVP-1,AS

1994 29 SFG NL 112 391 37 .312 .426 .647 ; SS,MVP-4,AS

1995 30 SFG NL 144 506 33 .294 .431 .577 ;MVP-12,AS

1996 31 SFG NL 158 517 42 .308 .461 .615 ;

1997 32 SFG NL 159 532 40 .291 .446 .585 ;SS,MVP-5,AS

Seems to me THOSE 12 years, young Mr. Bonds was figuring out lowered mounds and K zones pretty well, with some notable awards verifying the fact.