Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TonySoprano

Are Baseballs "Juiced" This Season?

Recommended Posts

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

I have never thought players in the early 70's could've been on steroids. And I can recall well those times and those players, I followed MLB closely as a teenager. 

However some of the comments on this forum have made me start to question my long held beliefs that steroid usage didn't start until the late 90's.

Hank Aaron hit 40 HR and .301 in 1973 for the Braves, at age 39.  That same year Davey Johnson was traded from the Orioles to the Braves. Davey had never hit more than 14 HR for the Orioles, and he averaged about 10 HR per year. So he goes to Atlanta in 1973 and hits 43 HR. Darrell Evans also hit 41 HR for the Braves in 1973.

Could it've been the smaller park helped Davey Johnson and the others? Or was there something else going on in Atlanta in 1973?  I guess we'll never know now. 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I have never thought players in the early 70's could've been on steroids. And I can recall well those times and those players, I followed MLB closely as a teenager. 

However some of the comments on this forum have made me start to question my long held beliefs that steroid usage didn't start until the late 90's.

Hank Aaron hit 40 HR and .301 in 1973 for the Braves, at age 39.  That same year Davey Johnson was traded from the Orioles to the Braves. Davey had never hit more than 14 HR for the Orioles, and he averaged about 10 HR per year. So he goes to Atlanta in 1973 and hits 43 HR. Darrell Evans also hit 41 HR for the Braves in 1973.

Could it've been the smaller park helped Davey Johnson and the others? Or was there something else going on in Atlanta in 1973?  I guess we'll never know now. 

 

 

 

 

 

Steroids started with the Russian weightlifters in the late 40's early 50's. They pretty much followed weight training from sport to sport. When baseball started weight training in the early 70's steroids went along. Hank averaged 36 HR a year and rarely hit more Than 40 I doubt he ever used PED's except for greenies.

Share this post


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

Steroids started with the Russian weightlifters in the late 40's early 50's. They pretty much followed weight training from sport to sport. When baseball started weight training in the early 70's steroids went along. Hank averaged 36 HR a year and rarely hit more Than 40 I doubt he ever used PED's except for greenies.

Perhaps not but at age 39 some deterioration has usually set in for MLB players, if you look at the whole history of the sport. Also how do you explain Davey Johnson going from 10 HR per year to over 40 when he went to the Braves and played with Aaron in 1973?

Share this post


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

Perhaps not but at age 39 some deterioration has usually set in for MLB players, if you look at the whole history of the sport. Also how do you explain Davey Johnson going from 10 HR per year to over 40 when he went to the Braves and played with Aaron in 1973?

Aaron hit 20 the next year, followed by 12. then 10 so he tailed off his last three years. He never had a big spike like Johnson, or Brady did. They may well have juiced but I doubt Aaron did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, El Gordo said:

Steroids started with the Russian weightlifters in the late 40's early 50's. They pretty much followed weight training from sport to sport. When baseball started weight training in the early 70's steroids went along. Hank averaged 36 HR a year and rarely hit more Than 40 I doubt he ever used PED's except for greenies.

Early 40's. I should also add that steroids cause muscle gain even without working out. Someone taking steroids and not working out will still make significant muscle and strength gains. You will gain a lot of muscle even if you're doing nothing but sitting on the couch, but only about half as much as you would if you were working out too. You will gain more muscle taking steroids and not working out than someone would if they were working out and not taking steroids.

Also, steroids were rampant in the 60's as well and if they are rampant in the 60's and 70's, the 50's also have to be questioned at least.

Share this post


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

Also, steroids were rampant in the 60's as well and if they are rampant in the 60's and 70's, the 50's also have to be questioned at least.

I guess the question is, how rampant?    I personally think that the percentage of players using steroids was drastically higher from the late ‘80’s to the mid-2000’s than it was either before or after.   Can I prove that?   No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, El Gordo said:

Hank averaged 36 HR a year and rarely hit more Than 40 I doubt he ever used PED's except for greenies.

Three of those 40 HR seasons came in his age 35+ seasons. Career high in HR's (47) at the age of 37. Highest SLG of his career at the age of 39. Three of his five 1.000+ OPS seasons in his age 35+ years. Aaron didn't age normally until after he passed Ruth. Of course there's a lot to be suspicious of there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I guess the question is, how rampant?    I personally think that the percentage of players using steroids was drastically higher from the late ‘80’s to the mid-2000’s than it was either before or after.   Can I prove that?   No.

According to the Congressional Subcommittee's findings, the rates of use were at alarming levels in all sports. Tom House's candid statements indicate that most of the league was on PEDs including anabolic steroids in the 60's. There's plenty of guys that came out and said how rampant amphetamine use was as well. Why would you say drastically higher? Is it because the results were better? I tend to believe usage rates were roughly the same through all these years with the drugs being better producing more drastic results and giving the illusion that usage rates were higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sessh said:

According to the Congressional Subcommittee's findings, the rates of use were at alarming levels in all sports. Tom House's candid statements indicate that most of the league was on PEDs including anabolic steroids in the 60's. There's plenty of guys that came out and said how rampant amphetamine use was as well. Why would you say drastically higher? Is it because the results were better? I tend to believe usage rates were roughly the same through all these years with the drugs being better producing more drastic results and giving the illusion that usage rates were higher.

Do you have any data, links, etc. to back up these suppositions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Sessh said:

According to the Congressional Subcommittee's findings, the rates of use were at alarming levels in all sports. Tom House's candid statements indicate that most of the league was on PEDs including anabolic steroids in the 60's. There's plenty of guys that came out and said how rampant amphetamine use was as well. Why would you say drastically higher? Is it because the results were better? I tend to believe usage rates were roughly the same through all these years with the drugs being better producing more drastic results and giving the illusion that usage rates were higher.

Yes, mostly because of the results.    Your alternative explanation is certainly possible.    It’s also possible that it’s because the players combined the steroids with serious weight training beginning around the late 80’s, instead of just letting the steroids do all the work.     But I certainly remember that the first player I ever heard being openly accused of taking steroids was Jose Canseco, by Tom Boswell early in Canseco’s career.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, 25 Nuggets said:

Side note - am I the only one that finds it curious Frank Thomas is doing Nugenix commercials?

 

https://www.consumerreports.org/men-s-health/testosterone-booster/

 

20 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I find it hilarious given how strongly he opposed PEDs during his playing days.

It's extra hilarious that the product's name is a not-so-thinly veiled reference to Eugenics.  Take our product and you'll become a superior human. 

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







  • Posts

    • I don't imagine Mason Williams will be able to play the next few days so we will probably get to see more of Hays on this homestand.
    • From a purely impersonal point of view, I agree with you.    But in the real world, guys who have been with the club most of the year and have made some contributions aren’t going to be completely cut off.    They’ll get tossed a bone here and there.     And yes, I realize that one can debate whether Smith or Wilkerson  “made some contributions.”    
    • It was intended as a wisecrack.    The mores of 1976 weren’t the same as today.    Believe me, Weaver said a lot worse.     As to Cuellar, I understand Weaver made the remark after Cuellar complained about not getting enough starts in 1976, a year in which he went 4-13 with a 4.96 ERA (66 ERA+).    To me it was just Weaver’s colorful way of saying that he felt he’d given Cuellar plenty of chances that year.    Not a comment on Cuellar’s overall performance during his career.    And my point in quoting Weaver was that Cuellar got a lot more chances that year than a pitcher without his track record would have gotten.     Even Earl Weaver believed that a guy who had earned it over a long period of time deserved some rope.   Buck was far from alone in that regard.   
    • They have to many players on the team.  I think they should be evaluating the guys who need evaluating.  I think we can close the book on Smith and Wilkerson.
    • I would keep Villar.  He is a good major league player.  We have too few of them to give them away.
    • It was a cheap shot on his first wife as well.
    • I haven't done the full 40-man eval but I'd protect him over the other guys you listed. Would the plus curve and the slider that is more slurrvy, I think he's got a pretty good chance of being a solid bullpen arm. From July to the end of the year batters slashed .147/.284/.206/.490 off him with a 0.47 ERA over 19.1 IP with 22 Ks and 11 BBs. Agreed the fastball command needs to tighten up a bit but at 93-95, it has enough on it to keep guys honest even when he not commanding as well.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...