Sessh

It was clearly on the black and close enough to knee level that he shouldn't have taken it. It was very close. It wasn't even that bad a call and certainly not a pitch you take with two strikes.

I meant the part where everyone cares what people are doing or using and it's this huge distraction. I didn't mean the PED's themselves, I don't care about those. I did before I found out how far back it all goes, but once I uncovered that reality, I stopped caring because it's all so silly.

I'm 36, so yes I am. :laughlol:

People actually sit back and hope others get caught? The Three Ring Circus Sideshow AKA MLB steroid scandals continue.... I miss when this wasn't a part of baseball.

Good point about Arnold. Stallone, too. Vince McMahon, too. I am certainly open to the idea that we've been lied to about steroids and PED's VIA exaggeration of health risks just like with recreational drugs which we're finally starting to see the light on.

For sure, but especially back in the 80's those guys were on something. I'm sure all the steroids didn't help though on top of all the other stuff. Mixing stuff like that is never good and the head trauma is definitely a factor as well.

Probably not as dangerous as they once were, no. I personally don't get it myself. You could point to all the pro wrestlers that have died early deaths and say "Ah ha!", but those guys seem to take far more of that stuff than would be advantageous for a baseball player. Have there been any reports about baseball players that took steroids or PED's that have suffered negative health effects later in life? Bonds, McGuire, Sosa (though he has gone off the deep end in other ways. He's pulled a Michael Jackson. Have you seen him lately?), Canseco etc.. they all seem fine. I have to wonder what how dangerous they really are myself.

It doesn't matter to you that many of those 700 used PEDs? Mantle, Aaron, Mays and the list goes on? Good article here about amphetamine and Bud Selig admitting amphetamines had been in baseball for seven or eight decades. Your "700 best" contain many, many players who used PEDs and set many, many records with their assistance. That's your elite club and it's the same as the players in the game since the 80's who have taken most of the blame for things that had been in the game before they were born.

You do realize that baseball has been like this for a very, very long time right? Personally, I think personal accountability and responsibility is becoming a lost art. If someone wants to smoke cigarettes for example, they are responsible if they get cancer and they knew the risks beforehand and did it anyway. It's really the same with PED's to me. It's their bodies. If they want to do things that may harm their bodies, they have to deal with that. I just don't like this whole idea that we need to protect people from themselves. These are adults that made a decision and they will have to deal with whatever consequences that decision brings. It's not like they didn't know the risks beforehand.

As long as there is demand, the black market will be there to supply. It is no different, really. There is money to be made and someone is going to make it.

I wonder what Lew Ford would think of that? :laughlol:

I would be surprised if players found that to be reasonable. At that point, you'll be disrupting family life for players based on constant suspicion without a shred of proof to warrant it. I think that would be a deterrent to being a baseball player at all. What if they have kids that wake up at 3AM and can't go back to sleep making the parents have to get up instead of getting up 4-5 hours later with the extra rest. I think disrupting life to that extent is too far and will elicit push back. I wouldn't stand for being subject to that kind of invasion of my private life based on nothing but baseless suspicion. Ridiculous. I think a compromise is the way to go. Prohibition doesn't work.

That crossed my mind too, but it seems to cross a line. Should this stuff be so intrusive that it is disrupting the lives of entire families? I think that is going too far. We can only go down this prohibition road so far, but I really don't get why this is still the preferred approach to drugs. It has never worked anywhere it has been tried, so maybe it's time to try something new. Does everything have to be banned? Can there be some kind of compromise where we allow some PED's, but restrict dosages and require constant monitoring by a doctor and maybe even administration of the drug by a doctor? I just think this road has been traveled enough times to know that it simply does not work. This bullheaded, prohibition approach only creates a black market that will always be better than your testing program. You just can't win this way.

Good points, but I don't think the increased penalty you propose would do anything except motivate players to do a better job of not getting caught which I guess comes down to finding a better chemist.

See, there's also the fact that PED's have been in baseball for over 100 years. The MLB testing program is a much younger entity and has a lot of catching up to do. The black market for PED's is well established and new suppliers will pop up as fast or faster than others will be caught. I just don't see how this will stop so long as there is money to be made and demand for the products.

If it is as easy to get around the program as these articles suggest, then it may be much higher than 25%. At the very least, it shows that the testing program really isn't working all that well if you have to be "dumb" to get caught.

Dirty Players, Sloppy Chemists or both? Another twist in MLB's PED Problem Baseball's drug program will never be perfect, but how close can it get? As with the war on drugs, I don't think stiffer penalties will have any effect whatsoever. If people really want to make an impact, you have to put a dent in the main incentive; money. The huge amounts of money players get for doing things that PED's help you do more of is the main incentive and as long as there is a demand, someone will be there to supply. Increasing penalties for recreational drugs did not do a thing to deter use and neither will stiffer penalties in MLB. This is an outdated approach that has been proven time and time again to be completely ineffective. I believe the #1 reason people play professional sports is for the money and anything they have to do to get more of it, they will do. Even if they get popped, they still have their money. Anyway, I just stumbled on to these articles on MLBTR and thought they were interesting reads.

And there's no chance the person doing the clicking has bias for or against one of the teams playing just like umpires can be prone to? The human element remains with the same risks just manifested a different way. Computers are only as accurate as the people telling them what to do. We will still have "umpires" deciding what the strike zone is only it will be done with a mouse pointer and a computer will be the middle man. The page I posted shows definitively that the accuracy of umpires calling balls and strikes is increasing. The problem is no one is rewarded for good performances. The worst home plate umpires are still calling balls and strikes even in high profile games. There's the problem. The best umpires at calling balls and strikes should always get the job over someone who is not as accurate. Umpires are rotated without any attempt to position them based on their strengths or weaknesses.

It would have to be adjusted by a human being and then we're right back where we started with the human element being a factor, though. I do like the pitch f/x however.

It's not. Pitch F/X data does not change when a taller batter comes up. It is static. The zone changes based on who is at the plate, their height and their batting stance. The zone is not exactly the same the whole game.

Even if we put sensors in player's jerseys, we would just start seeing players tampering with the jerseys or lowering their stances intentionally to get a strike at the top of the zone called a ball. Not even the Pitch F/X boxes are always accurate are not even always the same on TV as they are in reality. Besides, umpires have been getting better overall, not worse.

Do you think players and managers will be dishonest in such a case where the players at least have some input? They all know who the bad umpires are and who the good umpires are more than anyone else. You don't think having them help to pick out the good and bad ones won't help? I don't care how they are evaluated so long as they are evaluated somehow to determine if they should be calling balls and strikes. Also, what does replay have to do with replacing umpires? Nothing wrong with using it to assist with things like replay, but MLB is as close to removing umpires from the game as they are to allowing players to use aluminum bats and eliminate wooden bats. That's why I say it's not a realistic solution because it's not going to happen any time soon if it ever does. If MLB would just hold umpires to some quality standards, we wouldn't have these problems. Obviously, MLB has little to no problem with umpires being this way, so what makes anyone think they are going to kick them all out based on performance and spend a bunch of money installing new systems any time soon? If umpires are ever replaced, it's going to be the end of a long, gradual process. There's a big difference between computer assisted and computer controlled.

The problem is no one is doing anything to begin to fix the problem. They say umpires are evaluated, but they are clearly not or they are evaluated by incompetent people. Holding umpires accountable for calling games like this is the answer. Proper evaluation and putting only the highest rated umpires behind the plate will fix the problem. Letting managers and players rate umpires after every game based on their strike calling will help fix the problem. I find it baffling that so few people even touch on any realistic solutions. There will be no electronic strike zone any time soon if ever. MLB has caused this problem by making umpires unaccountable and untouchable and as a result, they don't care about their performance because they know they will still have a job the next day regardless of how they do and no one can say crap to them because they're umpires and MLB says they are always right even when they're wrong. That is the problem. Players and managers should rate performance after every game and then, we'll have the best umpires behind the plate and umpire performance overall will improve. It's about accountability and right now, umpires have been absolved of every last bit of it.

Givens is going to have to find a way to be more effective against lefties. Doesn't he kind of have a change-up? Maybe he should develop it and his slider could be better, too. Fastball is electric, though. He has allowed runs in two of his four appearances this year and lefties are 5-for-6 against him with three doubles.