Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TonySoprano

Are Baseballs "Juiced" This Season?

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Players were using PEDs well before the late 90's. 

I know, you love to beat the amphetamine drum, and of course you are factually correct.

But the specific mode of PED usage that blew up in the 90s was the use of PEDs that allowed people to recover more quickly from weight training so they could do more extreme weight training and build up previously unheard of strength.

And the fact is, until the 80s, there were very few guys in MLB who actually did any serious weightlifting.   It was considered something that guys in other sports did, but baseball players didn't.   It was feared, it turned out incorrectly, that muscle bulk would decrease bat speed.   That stigma didn't start disappearing until the 80s.   There were very few players who lifted seriously before that time.

You can argue moral equivalency all you want, but I think most fans see a difference between something that allows you to bulk up until your veins are popping out and your head is swollen, and something that is basically just super-coffee that helps you be more alert during a game after you were out partying until 4am the night before.

And the steroid explosion of the 90s was basically a new phenomenon because significant weightlifting/bodybuilding was for the most part considered (mistakenly) something ballplayers shouldn't do, until there was a significant attitude change beginning in the 80s.   

  • Upvote 2
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steroids were being used before the 90's.

I find it hilarious that some folks only have an issue with PEDs when they reached a certain level of efficiency.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sessh said:

Getting out of hand? You do realize that just about everyone was on amphetamines in the 60's and 70's, right? Guys were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses as well as growth hormones. Amphetamines have been around since the mid 1800's and steroids since the mid 1930's. Cocaine was legal in the early 1900's as well. This delusion that PED's just came out of nowhere in the 90's has to go. The drugs just got better in the 90's, that's it. The record books have been tainted for a very long time. I would say it's likely that over 75% of guys in there used PEDs. Aaron did. Mays did. Mantle did. Pretty much everybody did back then.

Heck, Pud Galvin showed in 1889 that even back then, guys were willing to inject dubious substances into their body to try to extend their careers. Guys will do anything to get to MLB and stay there as long as they can. It's not going to change. Professional sports without PEDs would likely be extremely boring. Such a product has never, ever existed and likely never will and I don't know how anyone can assume that it would be a good product much less a better one.

Mantle, Mays, and Aaron did not use PEDs.]

 I do not consider amphetamines PED, they did not drastically improve a players abilities, the way that HGH and steroids can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Mantle, Mays, and Aaron did not use PEDs.]

 I do not consider amphetamines PED, they did not drastically improve a players abilities, the way that HGH and steroids can. 

What proof  do you offer that the effects of amphetamines are of a smaller impact?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Frobby said:

They have a big dilemma because of the ever-increasing velocity at which pitchers are throwing.   With strikeouts way up, if they don’t juice the ball, runs are going to go down drastically.

It doesn't have to be that way.  Obviously you're not going to change stadium architectures overnight, but bigger outfields can lead to more runs with more space for outfielders to cover (and disincentivize playing first basemen and DHs in the outfield).  They could make minimum bat sizes, making barrels bigger and heavier, which probably will decrease strikeouts while limiting the number of players who can swing for the fences every pitch.  You could limit the size of gloves to make fielding a bit less efficient. They could move th mound back.

And/or they can phase in a limit of nine pitchers per team.  You cannot use 4, 5, 6 pitchers every game if you have five starters and only four relievers.  Pitchers will have to back it off a few mph.

That's my preferred solution set: Minimum bat sizes and set a max number of pitchers along with a 1980s baseball.  The first two phased in over a period of 3-4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

What proof  do you offer that the effects of amphetamines are of a smaller impact?

 

Hank, Mickey and Willie did them so they had to be morally okay and not impact any real records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Mantle, Mays, and Aaron did not use PEDs.]

 I do not consider amphetamines PED, they did not drastically improve a players abilities, the way that HGH and steroids can. 

Hank Aaron's statement about greenies was just like Brian Roberts' about (insert unnamed PED here): I only did it once and I didn't like it and stopped, that's 100% true, you have to believe me, I'm a good guy.

Mays had a bottle of mysterious red liquid in his locker.  I'm sure it was just a prototype of Gatorade. Although John Milner testified in court that Mays distributed amphetamines from his locker.

There's a longstanding rumor that the main reason Mantle lost the '61 home run race was that he missed a week or two from an infection of an injection site, probably steroids.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SteveA said:

I know, you love to beat the amphetamine drum, and of course you are factually correct.

But the specific mode of PED usage that blew up in the 90s was the use of PEDs that allowed people to recover more quickly from weight training so they could do more extreme weight training and build up previously unheard of strength.

And the fact is, until the 80s, there were very few guys in MLB who actually did any serious weightlifting.   It was considered something that guys in other sports did, but baseball players didn't.   It was feared, it turned out incorrectly, that muscle bulk would decrease bat speed.   That stigma didn't start disappearing until the 80s.   There were very few players who lifted seriously before that time.

You can argue moral equivalency all you want, but I think most fans see a difference between something that allows you to bulk up until your veins are popping out and your head is swollen, and something that is basically just super-coffee that helps you be more alert during a game after you were out partying until 4am the night before.

And the steroid explosion of the 90s was basically a new phenomenon because significant weightlifting/bodybuilding was for the most part considered (mistakenly) something ballplayers shouldn't do, until there was a significant attitude change beginning in the 80s.   

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Mantle, Mays, and Aaron did not use PEDs.]

 I do not consider amphetamines PED, they did not drastically improve a players abilities, the way that HGH and steroids can. 

lol, amphetamines have a proven, statistically significant performance enhancing effect. HGH does not. This thought process is wild to me. I just don't get it. Amphetamines have an immediate game day effect on performance. Steriods require continual dosage and significant hard work to fully take advantage of, amphetamines are easy cheat pills. 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

lol, amphetamines have a proven, statistically significant performance enhancing effect. HGH does not. This thought process is wild to me. I just don't get it. Amphetamines have an immediate game day effect on performance. Steriods require continual dosage and significant hard work to fully take advantage of, amphetamines are easy cheat pills. 

 

But but super coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 11:00 AM, TonySoprano said:

Looking at it from a slightly different angle, take the Orioles' numbers out of the equation, for the other 29 teams, the average is 35.10, and for the A.L alone, it's 35.14..   The Orioles number represents an increase of 108% above the average MLB team.   Yeah, we inflate the total league average by 3.

At the break, the average A.L. team, not named the Orioles, has surrendered 124.6 HR (1,744/14)   while in the N.L., the HR rate is 118.5 (1,777/15).  170 HRs allowed by Baltimore translates to 36% above A.L. average, and 40% higher than all of baseball.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maverick Hiker said:

In the late 1990's and early 2000's when the HR totals shot up, people naively speculated about the baseballs being juiced.  Of course,  it turned out that the players were on steroids and HGH, and that is what caused the HR totals to go up.

In my opinion, the exact same thing is happening now. The HR totals are going up,, and people are naively speculating about the baseballs being juiced.   History is quite simply repeating itself. The players have found ways to get around the testing and  as Segui said in today's USA article, the great majority of MLB players are taking something to improve their performance. (Segui says at least 60% of current MLB players are on PED). 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/verlaju01.shtml

To be talking  about the balls being juiced and Verlander's speculations, I think you are wasting your time on a red herring.  The PED use in MLB is getting out of control, and the results of the games are being distorted by such stats as the HR totals (and strikeouts). 

What about the AAA Homerun totals at an all-time high pace as well? I think the balls are juiced, and should be reversed hopefully by next season. Guys in their mid 30's aren't dominating the sport like they were 10-15 years ago, which goes against the PED theory.  If PED's do anything, its prolong peak performance years after a players prime should have left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

It's the ball and I am sure we will see analysis similar to 2017 that will prove it.

We already have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Camden_yardbird said:

It's the ball and I am sure we will see analysis similar to 2017 that will prove it.

 

2 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

We already have. 

I think the only question is whether it’s only the ball.    The ball is certainly the biggest factor.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







×
×
  • Create New...