Jump to content

Palmeiro just digging his grave deeper


accinfo

Recommended Posts

What are you basing this on? Do you have a source for this?

I read both Canseco books and he pretty much spells out the bat speed and timing help that steroids offers. Canseco loved the Roids and thought everyone should be using them.

Canseco also said that he would of never gotten to the Majors without steroids and if he had managed to stay healthier he would of put up the numbers to make the hall of fame. Frankly that is why he told the world his little "secret". Because he wanted to make the hall and thought baseball had blackballed him.

Which they did but he deserved it. Just like what happened with Barry Bonds at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 450
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I understand physics. How do you explain, for example, monster Home Run Derby shots? They don't throw 90 MPH for the derby, and it's not uncommon for the hitters to break 500 feet.

It's easier to make perfect contact on a slow fastball than on a fast fastball. It's hard to make good contact on breaking or deceptive off-speed pitches, which make up the bulk of "slow pitches" at the major league level. I think you've got some wires crossed in your argument.

You don't think they threw a lot of breaking pitches and off speed pitches during Ruth's era? We are talking about bat speed and the degree that steroids effect it. Sure squaring up the ball well is important. but that has to do with hand eye coordination. Bat speed is the primary factor in generating power. The faster the ball is pitched the farther it will go if it is squared up and the bat speed is good. If the ball is juiced it will go farther. If the the bat speed and pitch speed are the same, the heavier batter will hit the the ball farther.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand physics. How do you explain, for example, monster Home Run Derby shots? They don't throw 90 MPH for the derby, and it's not uncommon for the hitters to break 500 feet.

It's easier to make perfect contact on a slow fastball than on a fast fastball. It's hard to make good contact on breaking or deceptive off-speed pitches, which make up the bulk of "slow pitches" at the major league level. I think you've got some wires crossed in your argument.

You answered the first part with the second part. A slower pitch is easier to make contact with, thus more likely to travel farther than a faster pitch that is less like to get a solid blow.

However, just from basic physics, all else being equal, a ball traveling at a higher speed will go farther than one at a lower speed if hit in the same manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that Raffy more than likely guilty as charged, but why would he even risk taking PED's with hit #3000 well within reach? He had most of the season still in front of him and 2-3 more years if he wanted as a DH. I could never fathom the part of the equation...:confused:

Because he was taking PED's for years and never thought he would get caught like most cheats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You answered the first part with the second part. A slower pitch is easier to make contact with, thus more likely to travel farther than a faster pitch that is less like to get a solid blow.

However, just from basic physics, all else being equal, a ball traveling at a higher speed will go farther than one at a lower speed if hit in the same manner.

Well, I mean, I knew the answer :P I was just trying to draw it out. The argument that Ruth's distances SUFFERED from facing a weaker pool of pitchers is ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he was taking PED's for years and never thought he would get caught like most cheats.
They tested in 2003 and 2004. If he had taking easily detected Winstrol why did he not fail those tests? And if if were using more state of the art steroids why did he switch to the outmoded Winstrol right after calling attention to himself when he testified to Congress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, what if he started two years before? I could buy his jump in power around the age of 26-28 due to natural progression and the peak years situation, but the fact that he kept that peak until 38-years old is a big problem for me. Palmeiro did have a nice swing, and he hit a lot of doubles which did suggest he had more power, but one of the reasons the Cubs traded him was because of his lack of power for a first baseman.

I firmly believe Palmeiro was going to be a very good player regardless of PED use,but also firmly believe his numbers, including his extraordinarily long peak, certainly suggest he was PED user before his failed drug test.

It's a whole separate issue as to whether you believe guys during this ERA belong in the HoF or not, but I think there's more than just circumstantial evidence that Palmeiro was dirty long before it was proven.

So I suppose you have a big problem with Hank Aaron's peak lasting til he was 39 including having his best hr year by far (per AB) at age 37 and then beating that at age 39?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that bothers me about keeping certain guys out, is that you know there must be quite a few other guys who used steroids but who were lucky enough not to get caught. Just like only a fraction of drunk drivers get pulled over for drunk driving.

As to Raffy, I totally believed him when he testified before Congress. He had me hook, line and sinker. Now, imagine you've been subpoenaed by Congress, you've testified under oath, etc., and now someone wants to stick a needle in your butt without a doctors's supervision. You are going to do that? Come on.

So it doesn't bother you that tons of guys in the HOF have used greenies? That many have cheated in other ways as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting question. Even with 3000 hits, and 500 homers he seemingly was always overlooked. With just 4 AS appearances, he was often thought below the Thomas, McGwire (even Vaughn level).

Still, this is a guy that between '91 and '02 had an OPS over .900 10 times.

I think voters would have had to eventually placed him in.

If he does not have a major gain next year, his odds of entry will probably stay remote.

I think the things that can potentially help him are if a guy like Bonds, Clemens, or Arod get voted in because of how great they were and/or if someone that is or will be voted in is found out to have used steroids. Otherwise, it will be interesting to see how the veterans committee handles the steroids players in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Palmeiro scenario - him suddenly deciding to inject himself with Winstrol, an easily detected steroid, after wagging a finger at Congress, and while knowing that he would definitely again be tested - makes absolutely no sense. Assuming that Palmeiro is an intelligent human being - an easy assumption - and knew that there was no way in hell he could possibly get away with such an obvious, and ridiculous, self-defeating action, why would he do it intentionally?

Palmeiro's insistance that he injected tainted B-12 , received from trusted teammate, Miguel Tejada, is perfectly logical. The argument that he should not have accepted a drug from someone else is valid, but he knew Tejada injected B-12, obviously used B-12 himself, and obviously believed it was safe to accept and use what Tejada offered. Why would he not?

Although we will never know for sure, logic and common sense makes me believe Palmeiro's story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, anyone who cares about steroids in baseball should check out the two links in the OP of this thread.

I see El Gordo linked to it as well. People should really read that to get a better understanding of steroids in baseball. Joe Posnanski has a very good and much shorter take on it as well that is in the thread I just linked to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically it wasn't against the rules when many of these players used steroids. So do we then differentiate between those who used them during the 'legal' period and those that used them illegally? And what about the old time pitchers who legally used the tobacco spitter and emery ball, do we go back and take them out of the Hall? Not to mention the triple records of 36 for a season and 309 for a career, do we eliminate these records because some fields were as far as 635' to dead center?

There really isn't easy answers to any of these questions but if you do eliminate only those who were caught using steroids you've opened up dozens of cans of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I have for you, is what kind of pitching did both men face? Did Ruth face guys who threw almost nothing but fastballs? Did Ruth face relief specialists? Did Ruth face the quality of pitching that McGwire faced on a day in, day out basis? Maybe Ruth would have had a lot of trouble swinging a 3 lb bat in today's game.
In all fairness todays pitchers throw harder on an average basis but in Ruth's day the ball had much more movement on it. Which is harder to hit over the fence, a 95 mph fastball or a scuffed spitter?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/6738/change-will-roll-into-the-hall-someday

But what I finally realized last night, after thinking about this for the last few years, is that the argument for using amphetamines is actually worse than the argument for using steroids (et cetera).

When Mark McGwire pleaded that he used steroids merely to recover from an injury, and his drug use wasn't performance enhancing but instead performance enabling, he was generally mocked and deserved to be. Because Jim is right: That's a distinction without a real difference. Not to mention the fact that it's reasonable to assume that McGwire continued to use steroids well after he'd recovered from his injuries.

Still, it's probably true that some players, perhaps including McGwire, were able to return to the lineup (or the rotation, or the bullpen) sooner than otherwise because they used drugs illegally. In those cases, the drugs really were performance enablers; the players literally wouldn't have been able to perform, at all, without the drugs.

Amphetamines, though? Those were, for a number of decades, purely performance enhancers. Can any of the hundreds of players who used amphetamines in the 1960s and '70s and '80s and '90s really argue that without greenies, they would have been forced to go to their managers and say, "Sorry, Skip. Just don't have enough energy today. You'd better take me out of the lineup."

I don't think so. Players didn't use amphetamines so they could play. Players used amphetamines so they could play better. And to be completely frank, anybody who tells you different is either lying or foolish.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us where we've been for a few years now: Waiting for someone, anyone, to reasonably explain why all the sluggers of the '70s and '80s belong in the Hall of Fame, but those of the '90s and '00s do not.

Nobody's going to explain, because there is no explanation. There are only prejudices and self-righteousness and feelings that can't withstand even the beginnings of a logical argument.

This is the part I wanted to highlight, but there's a whole other half of the post about the amazing glut of Hall candidates coming up due to the hypocrisy of this whole situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Palmeiro scenario - him suddenly deciding to inject himself with Winstrol, an easily detected steroid, after wagging a finger at Congress, and while knowing that he would definitely again be tested - makes absolutely no sense. Assuming that Palmeiro is an intelligent human being - an easy assumption - and knew that there was no way in hell he could possibly get away with such an obvious, and ridiculous, self-defeating action, why would he do it intentionally?

Palmeiro's insistance that he injected tainted B-12 , received from trusted teammate, Miguel Tejada, is perfectly logical. The argument that he should not have accepted a drug from someone else is valid, but he knew Tejada injected B-12, obviously used B-12 himself, and obviously believed it was safe to accept and use what Tejada offered. Why would he not?

Although we will never know for sure, logic and common sense makes me believe Palmeiro's story.

This is how I see it as well. In addition not only did Tejada use the B12 regularly without ever testing poisitive, Tejada gave it to other players who also didn't test positive.While still unwise it''s not hard to see how he could have trusted Tejada's B12. Palmeiro had used B12 occasionally when he was withe Texas so he was not unfamiliar to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...