Jump to content

Are Baseballs "Juiced" This Season?


TonySoprano

Recommended Posts

It's not just the stats that are the issue. The game is just boring to watch now. Homeruns were special things, but now you see 3 or 4 just about every game. If I remember right the Phillies/Mets had something crazy like 13 in a game earlier this year.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Punchandjudy said:

Guess Verlander answered my question above and then some! 

Next question, will MLB change the balls back? Or will they basically do the same thing they did by turning a blind eye to dopers and completely invalidate all the stats that came before.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Home runs are so plentiful (too plentiful?) that teams have stopped running (the stolen base rate is the lowest in 48 years) and pitchers are more willing to walk a batter rather than throw a challenge pitch and risk a home run (walks are the highest in a decade).

 

https://www.si.com/mlb/2019/07/08/cody-bellinger-christian-yelich-mike-trout-home-runs-juiced-ball-mlb-2019-baseball-trends

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I don't get about the whole situation.

I read the article and the quotes from Verlander.  He isn't saying the game is being made a joke.  It's the secrecy by MLB that's the joke.

Rob Manfred or whoever MLB executive says, "we want more offense.  we're making changes to the baseball and here they are".   We have no issue!  I'm not aware of anything illegal about making changes to equipment unless they violate safety laws.  Does it violate something in the collective bargaining agreement?  Why in the world is there a want to make changes to the baseball covert???  It happens over and over again - we had this discussion before!  It makes absolutely no sense.

Stop getting in your own way MLB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 25 Nuggets said:

This is what I don't get about the whole situation.

I read the article and the quotes from Verlander.  He isn't saying the game is being made a joke.  It's the secrecy by MLB that's the joke.

Rob Manfred or whoever MLB executive says, "we want more offense.  we're making changes to the baseball and here they are".   We have no issue!  I'm not aware of anything illegal about making changes to equipment unless they violate safety laws.  Does it violate something in the collective bargaining agreement?  Why in the world is there a want to make changes to the baseball covert???  It happens over and over again - we had this discussion before!  It makes absolutely no sense.

Stop getting in your own way MLB.

Admitting a deliberate change to the ball would give a lot of ammo to argue that the record books are tainted, something that would be a huge turnoff to traditional fans. Mlb wants to eat cake and have it too, attract casual fans/the youths without alienating core fan base. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute 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). 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Admitting a deliberate change to the ball would give a lot of ammo to argue that the record books are tainted, something that would be a huge turnoff to traditional fans. Mlb wants to eat cake and have it too, attract casual fans/the youths without alienating core fan base. 

MLB's got a stick up their ass is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strikeouts are up and pitchers are getting bigger. I think both batters (more HR) and pitchers (strikeouts going up)  are on PED.

If the baseball being juiced is causing more HR, then how do you explain the larger sized pitchers and the increased strikeout totals? If the ball is juiced then batters would presumably not have to swing as hard,  just make contact, and there would be fewer strikeouts not more.

Also if the ball is juiced and flying off the bat faster, I would expect there would be more incidents of pitchers getting hurt by line drives hit  back up the middle and hitting the pitcher before he could react.  I have not heard of any such increase.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes 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). 

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.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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?

 

Link to comment
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.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...