Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TonySoprano

Are Baseballs "Juiced" This Season?

Recommended Posts

The home run leader (Yelich) is one lean dude at 6-3195lb. Cody Bellinger also doesn't seem like a prototypical PED's physique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, byrdz said:

The home run leader (Yelich) is one lean dude at 6-3195lb. Cody Bellinger also doesn't seem like a prototypical PED's physique.

GettyImages-524300292.0.jpg

 

6a00d834515b9a69e2019b02a4af57970b-pi.jp

Like these two?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Oh, so you are saying that people think that since steroids make a visible physical impact and amphetamines don't that steroids effect performance to a greater degree?

Because I don't follow that logic.  They work in different ways. 

 

Exactly, I think the fact that people can look at Bonds and see clear evidence that something is different and therefore see the impact.  I am not arguing different impact, or even different outcome.  I do see how it is easier to make an association, even if it is false, that Bonds and his era ushered in an era that redefined cheating and whether you and I agree with that association or not, I do think it explains why we find ourselves in a position where Bonds, Clemens, Arod, Sosa and McGuire are not in the Hall of Fame, yet Aaron, Ruth, Mantle, Mays and even Gaylord Perry are.

The struggle is real, and it continues.

And thanks for the edit above.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That seems like a fairly ridiculous statement.    I think the root is the increasing velocity of pitches, which certainly doesn’t stem from less PED’s.

There's nothing ridiculous about it. Major league hitters can hit fastballs and if they can't, they don't last long in the league. Even average hitters can hit a mid-90's fastball. Mark Wohlers was throwing 103 in the 90's and had a fairly underwhelming career overall. It takes way more than velocity to get ML hitters out on a consistent basis, so I would say that statement is rather ridiculous as well. If we're going to say that PEDs significantly increase athletic performance, than taking them away MUST significantly decrease athletic performance. The most noticeable effect of PEDs is more power, more homeruns and more scoring. Taking them away reverses those increases into the negative.

Share this post


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

Here's the lack of efficacy of HGH. 

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/741027/systematic-review-effects-growth-hormone-athletic-performance

"Conclusion:

Claims that growth hormone enhances physical performance are not supported by the scientific literature. Although the limited available evidence suggests that growth hormone increases lean body mass, it may not improve strength; in addition, it may worsen exercise capacity and increase adverse events. More research is needed to conclusively determine the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance."

Here's some peer reviewed stimulant data

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-018-1014-1

3.2.1 S6: Stimulants

Stimulants are thought to potentially improve performance via the effects on neurotransmitter levels in the brain, predominantly dopamine and norepinephrine. Research into the effects of stimulants on performance has mainly focused on a few drug classes. Amphetamines such as amphetamine sulfate [95] showed positive effects on muscle strength (knee extension strength + 23%), acceleration (+ 4%) and time to exhaustion (+ 5%) in untrained subjects. Similarly, methylphenidate [96] improved time to exhaustion (+ 29%) in highly trained subjects. VO2maxwas not affected in either study and endurance performance (such as a time trial) was not investigated in these studies. Of note, the former study used no baseline correction (i.e. amphetamine performance was directly compared with placebo performance in the randomized, crossover design) and, for the latter study, it is unclear whether it was (double-)blinded, which may both make the results less robust. Another study with a higher dose of methylphenidate showed no effect on time-trial performance in normal temperature, but there was an improvement of 15% average power output compared with placebo in the heat (30°) in trained subjects [97]. Levomethamphetamine was investigated for its effect on time-trial performance in young participants and showed no change [98].

Ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine have a similar mechanism of action to amphetamines. Two studies investigating the effects of ephedrine showed positive effects. One study found an effect on peak Wingate sprint power (+ 0.6%), but not on time to exhaustion [99], in untrained subjects, and another study found an improvement in a type of time-to-exhaustion test in trained strength athletes, namely leg and bench press repetitions (+ 30% and + 8%, respectively) [100]. One positive study for pseudoephedrine used a dose of 180 mg, which increased knee extension strength by 9% and peak Wingate sprint performance by 3%, but not bench press power, in strength-trained subjects [101]. Later publications also showed that low doses of pseudoephedrine used clinically did not affect 5000 m run time in highly trained runners [102], or peak power or total work during a Wingate test in trained subjects [103]; only high doses improved performance, with 1500 m run time decreasing by 2% in highly trained runners [104]. The authors of this latter study therefore concluded that high pseudoephedrine doses are needed for performance effects.

Hmm interesting. Still, I tend to believe that steroids and HGH would help a player more than amphetamines. One can find a study to back up almost anything that has a grain of truth to it.

 Plus, my mind is made up on this issue, and reading studies that go against what I believe  will only cause  me to have cognitive dissonance.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Hmm interesting. Still, I tend to believe that steroids and HGH would help a player more than amphetamines. One can find a study to back up almost anything that has a grain of truth to it.

 Plus, my mind is made up on this issue, and reading studies that go against what I believe  will only cause  me to have cognitive dissonance.

Rather than belief why not base your ideas on research and facts? My research has informed me that the primary benefit of PED;s is to increase the speed of workout recovery time and thus allowing the athlete to maintain a level of peak performance over an extended period of time. They do not increase maximum strength more than normal weight training.

Share this post


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

They do not increase maximum strength more than normal weight training.

My research has informed me that it's damn near impossible to get this big with "normal weight training"

jose-canseco_8069-780x405.jpeg

Anyway, whatever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

My research has informed me that it's damn near impossible to get this big with "normal weight training"

jose-canseco_8069-780x405.jpeg

Anyway, whatever.

 

Yeah. Nobody is going to convince me that HGH does not increase players strength, bat speed, power, average, and velocity for pitchers.

As for the players build it's not as obvious as the Bonds McGwire years but some of these players today still seem like they have unnatural muscle growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

My research has informed me that it's damn near impossible to get this big with "normal weight training"

jose-canseco_8069-780x405.jpeg

Anyway, whatever.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, El Gordo said:

 

There is s limit to how much muscle mass any individual can acquire. It varies from person to person. PED's don't increase that ceiling, they help you reach it faster.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Yeah. Nobody is going to convince me that HGH does not increase players strength, bat speed, power, average, and velocity for pitchers.

As for the players build it's not as obvious as the Bonds McGwire years but some of these players today still seem like they have unnatural muscle growth.

Right and climate change is a Chinese hoax. 

Growth hormones don't make you stronger: study 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-04/growth-hormones-dont-make-you-stronger-study/420984

Edited by El Gordo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Verlander broke omerta

Quote

“I may actually have facilitated that meeting,” Verlander’s Astros teammate, Gerrit Cole, admitted Tuesday night after the American League finished off the National League, 4-3, in the All-Star Game. “I saw Jim and Joe were in (manager Alex Cora’s) office. And they said hi. Then Jim, in not a profanity-laden way, said, ‘Get Justin in here right now.’ So I came out and said, ‘Hey, Skip wants to see you.’ And he said, ‘OK.’ Then he comes back and he goes, ‘Man, I just got chewed out.’”

Quote

“There is no desire on our part to increase the number of home runs,” Manfred said. “On the contrary, we’re concerned about how many we have.”

Quote

Has his opinion about the baseball changed since Monday?

Verlander smiled, took a deep breath, bounced his thoughts around his brain for a second, then replied, carefully, “Good question.” He paused and smiled again. “I think I need to dig a little further.”

Was it true he’d spoken to his friends at Major League Baseball since we’d heard from him last?

“Uh, yes,” he said, succinctly, again choosing his words meticulously.

Could he describe that conversation in any way?

“No. No,” he said. “Don’t need to.”

Nevertheless, he admitted he’d heard Manfred’s public response early in the day. Finally, he was asked where he wants it all to go from here.

“I don’t know,” he answered. “Like I said, those decisions are above my head. It’s just one of those things. If they want to reduce the drag on the ball or put it back the way it was, then we can work together, obviously. I’ve got some input. But you know, I’ve thrown a lot of different baseballs in my career. And I actually talked to some guys yesterday … and they said they’d welcome hearing some of my opinions. So I’m all aboard.”

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

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

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • The first part was what Elias spoke of immediately after the draft. I agree. I get the SSS skepticism, but it isn’t as much for me about the stats as it is about the process that Kjerstad showed in the video I watched. The mechanics and approach were much improved. Therefore, I think the success he had is sustainable. Not as confident in Servideo, but he is a toolsy guy I like where they got him. A guy I have cited as a big junior riser who was similar is JJ Bleday. Andrew Benintendi is a very different player, but had a meteoric rise from obscurity as a junior. 
    • I don't want to disagree about the O's approach to rebuilding with the posters in this thread. I actually think they have enough starting pitching to keep us in most games, assuming all of Baumann, Lowther, Akin, Kremer, Cobb, Means, Zimmerman, Smith, Bradish and Wells get an opportunity. I'm not saying they all stick, but I think they're good enough to be competitive. Position players are a different story. With that said, in a vaccuum, Eshelman is a fine move. Depth guy. Mop up guy. Usually won't kill you. He's no Mike Wright. Has value at a minimum salary, but isn't in the conversation for competitiveness.  
    • Exactly...and while they operate with different financial constraints, they also had a barren MiL system at the time too.     But they made the right decision to trade guys, develop what they did have well and got right back there.
    • While not the best example, the Yankees "sell off" in 2016 shows that a rebuild does not need to take years and years.  They traded a huge trade chip in Chapman for Gleyber Torres, traded Andrew Miller for some good pieces, traded Beltran for Tate (which got them Britton shortly thereafter) made a few more moves, and were competitive again.  Again, they operate with different financial constraints, etc., but this is proof that a rebuild does not need to include purposely terrible seasons.
    • Yep...and all of those fan bases have been fooled that it must take as long as it does.
    • Or the more likely concern, from my perspective, is it's just a SSS. Don't want to over react to a hot streak. Every hitter who ever played has had them. With Kjerstad, he also had some team USA moments if I remember correctly, so hopefully this is a reflection of what he is and not a hot month at the plate.
    • This is true.  And to this point, the hardcore tanking of the Sixers netted them two very good draft picks at the top of the draft (Embiid and Simmons) and two awful early picks (Okafor and Noel).  Being awful for good draft positioning does not always yield results.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...