U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Is Ryan Braun Vindicated?
Yes he is innocent 6 20.69%
No I still think he juiced! 24 82.76%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2012, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,996 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18678

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Nickel on him having a strong year maybe not an MVP year but stellar.

You up for it GS?
You want to bet on an adjective? Quantify "stellar" and ask me again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2012, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
12,272 posts, read 11,326,033 times
Reputation: 6119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
You want to bet on an adjective? Quantify "stellar" and ask me again.
Stellar? Seriously?? It's not a difficult thing to understand...Most fans can agree on many adjectives that among them. If you are scared of the nickel we can make it a dime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,996 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18678
Quote:
Originally Posted by AADAD View Post
Stellar? Seriously?? It's not a difficult thing to understand...Most fans can agree on many adjectives that among them. If you are scared of the nickel we can make it a dime.
You say it is so well known, yet offer no illustrative numbers.

If it isn't difficult to understand, why does it seem to be eluding you?

Only a fool would accept a bet with such vaguely defined criteria for determining the winner. Put up or shut up time....what is your numerical definition of a stellar season? If he hits .280 with 22 home runs, is that stellar? What about .290 with 24 home runs? Or .234 with 38 home runs? What if he gets off to a hot start and then gets hurt and misses the last three months? Was that stellar or does the limited playing time make it less than stellar?

Could you walk into a casino sports betting parlor and place a wager that the Phillies will have a "stellar" season 2012? Would you not be laughed out of the joint?

Get real or stop this nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 12:48 AM
 
Location: Ohio
904 posts, read 1,635,408 times
Reputation: 1164
As long as Selig is still commissioner, its good to play for the Brewers. No, they don't win much, but you'll never have to worry about the team or a player being in bad press. I wouldn't doubt if Selig pulled a few strings for this to come out making Braun look clean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 05:14 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,056,541 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
However, a poor performance by Braun would constitute evidence for sustaining suspicion, and that isn't ignorance for it would be based on the manifest pattern we have been seeing for several years.
The steroid witch hunt is ridiculous. People in the press (and fans as well) look at some players from the 'Roid Era' and simply say "Well, he put up good numbers... and he looks like he could have done steroids... Yup, I decided. He did steroids and we will discount his feats on a whim."

The thing I find most interesting about when people talk about PEDs is they simply assume that they do indeed enhance performance. It is like it is a given. We have no way of knowing how much it did help (if at all). Consider the Mitchell Report. There we have a list of players that with more certainty than others, can say used HGH/PEDs/etc in their career.

Go ahead, look at the list: List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peruse it quickly. You know what you'll find? Sure, you'll see some big-time players on that list: Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi, Clemens, Canseco. Then we'll see some other well known players: Pettitte, Justice, Brown

But don't overlook the rest of the list. Who else is on there? Scrubs. Randy Velarde? Tim Laker? Hal Morris? Who are these guys? How much were those guys' performances enhanced? Hell, Knoblauch claims that his worst years were when he was taking HGH. He was a decent player before then and he suddenly fell off a cliff.

I think they should be renamed PADs: performance altering drugs. We don't really know what they do. I still think they should be banned, but I don't think we can categorically claim that they enhance performance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Whidbey Island, WA
12,272 posts, read 11,326,033 times
Reputation: 6119
"However, a poor performance by Braun would constitute evidence for sustaining suspicion"

So "poor" is ok but "stellar"is in the toilet?

You are way to complex a guy for my tastes.

Braun may be guilty and then again he may be innocent. Time will tell. It did with Bonds. Not only were his samples potentially far more potentially contaminated, those tests were in the hands of a DA that everyone agreed was rabid.

So people like GS and others who depend (multiple posts) on "head size" "larger" and "huge" and then demand specific science for a "stellar" year. In the interests of baseball I assert you are disingenuous and what I label as such.

One cannot have it both ways, you must either exonerate all or convict all in the court of zero tolerance but at least have the common decency to look at your own posts in which you demand accurate scientific results and then slam Bonds and others and won't use the same standards you demand from others.

Left without facts, baseball becomes a sham or does it>?. Bonds hit harder than any player I have ever seen without nothin'. So go back to your couch and let your prejudging of him slosh around. In the absence of real facts and the demand that I submit facts to you when you don't use them yourself again as I have said leaves other explanations most of them pointing to racism.

You can deal with that right? Bonds has never tested positive for steroid use. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

I am keeping my nickel. See ya...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,996 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18678
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
The steroid witch hunt is ridiculous. People in the press (and fans as well) look at some players from the 'Roid Era' and simply say "Well, he put up good numbers... and he looks like he could have done steroids... Yup, I decided. He did steroids and we will discount his feats on a whim."

The thing I find most interesting about when people talk about PEDs is they simply assume that they do indeed enhance performance. It is like it is a given. We have no way of knowing how much it did help (if at all). Consider the Mitchell Report. There we have a list of players that with more certainty than others, can say used HGH/PEDs/etc in their career.

Go ahead, look at the list: List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peruse it quickly. You know what you'll find? Sure, you'll see some big-time players on that list: Bonds, Sheffield, Giambi, Clemens, Canseco. Then we'll see some other well known players: Pettitte, Justice, Brown

But don't overlook the rest of the list. Who else is on there? Scrubs. Randy Velarde? Tim Laker? Hal Morris? Who are these guys? How much were those guys' performances enhanced? Hell, Knoblauch claims that his worst years were when he was taking HGH. He was a decent player before then and he suddenly fell off a cliff.

I think they should be renamed PADs: performance altering drugs. We don't really know what they do. I still think they should be banned, but I don't think we can categorically claim that they enhance performance.
Actually we have an excellent notion of what steroids can do. More than half of all the single season performances of 50 or more home runs in a single season took place between 1990 and 2004. If we view 1920 as the start of the long ball era, that means that half of the 50 plus home run seasons took place over the course of 50 years, and half took place in a concentrated period of 15 years.

You are unable to extract any conclusions from that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,996 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18678
AADAD
Quote:
You are way to complex a guy for my tastes.
We finally agree on something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:32 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,056,541 times
Reputation: 2869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Actually we have an excellent notion of what steroids can do. More than half of all the single season performances of 50 or more home runs in a single season took place between 1990 and 2004. If we view 1920 as the start of the long ball era, that means that half of the 50 plus home run seasons took place over the course of 50 years, and half took place in a concentrated period of 15 years.

You are unable to extract any conclusions from that?
Baseball is a little more complicated than you make it out to be. Look at 1968 to 1969. The league average for team HRs was 100 in 1968. And 130 in 1969. No season has seen a jump that big (30%) in HRs. I guess (according to your logic), everyone was taking steroids.

But that is false.

We cannot definitely characterize how HGH/PEDs/etc affect player performance. Claiming you can is just silly. There are many factors that contributed to the offensive explosion of the 90s/early 00s. HGH/PEDs has a role, but we don't know if it created an across the board 2% increase to offense... or 10%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,996 posts, read 18,573,926 times
Reputation: 18678
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy View Post
Baseball is a little more complicated than you make it out to be. Look at 1968 to 1969. The league average for team HRs was 100 in 1968. And 130 in 1969. No season has seen a jump that big (30%) in HRs. I guess (according to your logic), everyone was taking steroids.

But that is false.

We cannot definitely characterize how HGH/PEDs/etc affect player performance. Claiming you can is just silly. There are many factors that contributed to the offensive explosion of the 90s/early 00s. HGH/PEDs has a role, but we don't know if it created an across the board 2% increase to offense... or 10%.
You need to do your homework on the history of the game. The jump between '68 and '69 has a known and definite cause. The strikezone had been expanded in 1963 as a reaction to the Maris/Mantle assault on Ruth's home run record. The result of this was to send offensive levels rolling back to the deadball era, culminating in the famous "Year of the Pitcher"..1968.

So, before the 1969 season, MLB reshrunk the strikezone and lowered the mound. The results were immediate.

Apparently you were unaware of this and this is what caused you to reach a false conclusion and question my logic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top