Are Baseballs "Juiced" This Season?

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

Anecdotal evidence vs data based evidence

HGH doesn't do anything, so let's leave it out of this. Steroids do, I'm not arguing that Steroids aren't PEDs, but that amphetamines are just as much a PED as Steroids, both are cheating,

You need to start with the conclusion and work from there to find your facts.  Willie Mays didn't cheat therefore... greenies are okay.

[DrungoHazewood]

29 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

Strikeout, Home Run, Walk, repeat....

And after the 4th inning insert a new guy throwing 97 every three batters.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'll watch the Orioles, but I'd much prefer a version with more than one strategy.

But it's the best strategy.

It makes sense the the game has, to a degree, boiled down to which side gets the optimum outcome each at bat.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

But it's the best strategy.

It makes sense the the game has, to a degree, boiled down to which side gets the optimum outcome each at bat.

The powers-that-be need to stir things up so that there's disagreement in what works best.  When everyone is in agreement that's a great recipe for domination by the teams with the most resources.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

The powers-that-be need to stir things up so that there's disagreement in what works best.  When everyone is in agreement that's a great recipe for domination by the teams with the most resources.

I guess?

But I can't blame the hitters or pitchers for doing what they are doing.  It only makes sense from their viewpoint.

[ScGO's]

If we have entered the Juiced Ball Era are guys like Chris Carter and Pedro Alvarez going to valued again?  I feel like this new ball is a drop in the analytic stew.  What types of players will be valued in the next few years.  

[Maverick Hiker]

59 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Funny how Luke mentions " proven, statistically significant performance enhancing effect" and you mention " I saw".

Funny, how you are impressed with phrases, even when there are no statistics shown to back them up. 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Funny, how you are impressed with phrases, even when there are no statistics shown to back them up. 

I've seen the statistics, which I'm betting you've never looked for.

You've got nothing but your opinion.

[Can_of_corn]

14 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

If we have entered the Juiced Ball Era are guys like Chris Carter and Pedro Alvarez going to valued again?  I feel like this new ball is a drop in the analytic stew.  What types of players will be valued in the next few years.  

Why pick up a Chris Carter when a Chance Sisco hits a HR every 10 at bats? 

[Luke-OH]

16 minutes ago, Maverick Hiker said:

Funny, how you are impressed with phrases, even when there are no statistics shown to back them up. 

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. VO_2maxwas 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.

[foxfield]

13 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

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

 

 

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

People who grew up idolizing Willie, Mickey, and The Duke wanted to believe this was a problem of those darned kids from the 1990s and 2000s, not their heros. 

But if you're born in 2000 or 2010 Mickey Mantle has as much relevance to you as Ty Cobb does to me.  Cool to read old stories, but no emotional attachment that skews your objectivity.  History will mostly sort it out, eventually.

 

1 hour ago, Luke-OH said:

Anecdotal evidence vs data based evidence

HGH doesn't do anything, so let's leave it out of this. Steroids do, I'm not arguing that Steroids aren't PEDs, but that amphetamines are just as much a PED as Steroids, both are cheating,

Cheating has always existed and arguing otherwise is futile.  However, when people ask for evidence of modern cheating and speak of it having a larger impact today, I think that comes less from say Hank Aaron having a great year at 39 and more from this....which I offer as the proof Can of Corn asks for above:

 

 

That should not impact overwhelming evidence of prior cheating...but that is one human above.  Both great players, but one is clearly the benefactor of a level of cheating that is exponentially different than the version that existed previously.  

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, foxfield said:

 

  

Cheating has always existed and arguing otherwise is futile.  However, when people ask for evidence of modern cheating and speak of it having a larger impact today, I think that comes less from say Hank Aaron having a great year at 39 and more from this....which I offer as the proof Can of Corn asks for above:

 

 

That should not impact overwhelming evidence of prior cheating...but that is one human above.  Both great players, but one is clearly the benefactor of a level of cheating that is exponentially different than the version that existed previously.  

So you are arguing cheating more efficiently is somehow worse?

[foxfield]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

So you are arguing cheating more efficiently is somehow worse?

I am not arguing that at all.  I agree that cheating has existed forever, we know pitchers for example have always doctored the ball.  You asked for proof that todays cheating had a larger impact and I am merely showing exhibit A as to why people make that leap.  Is that worse or just more obvious?

[sevastras]

1 hour ago, Maverick Hiker said:

No, You have it backwards.  HGH and steroids enable players to make a mockery of the game.  I saw Bonds hitting many times when he was on the juice, it was ridiculous. His plate coverage and bat speed were unnatural, so was his build.  He broke the HR records because of steroids. Bonds  could have taken the best amphetamines in the world and he would never have come close to what he did with steroids.  McGwire would not have broken Maris' 61 HR record if not for steroids. 

Amphetamines help a tired player achieve close to his natural ability when he is tired, like after a night game.  They do not make him look like the Hulk or enable him to break HR records. 

You are confusing Amphetamines with caffeine.  Amphetamines give you a faster reaction time, better concentration, and less fatigue.  The levels that are achieved through the use of amphetamines are levels that cannot be achieved without "help".  

Barry Bonds with amphetamines would come close or break the HR. You forget/didnt know that Bonds was hitting 40+ HR and walking 100+ times in the early 90s, before the alleged conversation with Ken Griffey Jr about how they were better than McGwire and Sosa and he wasnt going to let them take stuff and be seen as better than him. 

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, foxfield said:

I am not arguing that at all.  I agree that cheating has existed forever, we know pitchers for example have always doctored the ball.  You asked for proof that todays cheating had a larger impact and I am merely showing exhibit A as to why people make that leap.  Is that worse or just more obvious?

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. 

 

Edited July 9, 2019 by Can_of_corn
Changed it to show that I wasn't accusing Foxfield of sharing that belief