General Sports Talk
Poll
 | 42 votes (65.62%) | ||
| | 2 votes (3.12%) | ||
| | 5 votes (7.81%) | ||
| | 3 votes (4.68%) | ||
| | 9 votes (14.06%) | ||
| | 2 votes (3.12%) | ||
| | 1 vote (1.56%) |
64 members have voted
don't want to beat a dead horse - I've said enough about the comparison thing
just wanted to point out that in the Babe's 3rd year in Boston - pitching - he went 23-12 with a 1.75 era
Gordonm888 mentioned Walter Johnson. in 1916 Babe had a better era than him
he was truly amazing
.
tuttigym
Quote: lilredrooster___________
don't want to beat a dead horse - I've said enough about the comparison thing
just wanted to point out that in the Babe's 3rd year in Boston - pitching - he went 23-12 with a 1.75 era
Gordonm888 mentioned Walter Johnson. in 1916 Babe had a better era than him
he was truly amazing
.
link to original post
Statistics are not that valuable to compare era to era. When doing my ‘GOAT’ analyses, I try and figure out how much better the players was compared with his peers. That’s why it’s easy for me in some sports, like hockey, where Gretzky was so far and away above his peers compared to say Ovechkin, Crosby, etc…. Same for Woods in golf…. Check his ‘World Golf Championship’ results. Too lazy to get exact results, but I think he had won more than ALL his competitors combined before his meltdown. Football has Jerry Rice, who so far outstripped his fellow wide receivers of his era. You can argue about QBs but in a room full of 20 guys you’d probably get 6 or 7 answers. For WR, only 1.
In baseball, I’d agree with Ruth, especially if you look at the comparison to his peers. As good as the best player of our era is (Trout), he is not that much better than Pujols, Goldschmidt, or now Judge.
NBA—- Jordan, James, Chamberlain, Byrd, Johnson could all get votes. No clear answer.
The only unanimous choice? Joey Chestnut in competitive eating…..!!!
Quote: SOOPOOIIn baseball, I’d agree with Ruth, especially if you look at the comparison to his peers.
I personally agree with most of the entirety of your statement regarding statistics with the exception of this quote.
I believe a case can be made that Negro Leaue BB players should be considered as peers of Ruth. Yet their accomplishments are dismissed simply because historical geography turns a blind eye to historical reality and achievement. To put it in perspective, imagine there were "Negro Leagues" in basketball and the NBA was a segregated institution. To call George Mikan (spelling?) the greatest of all time, would be a huge slight to minority players forced to play only among their own because society dictated such.
tuttigym
Quote: SOOPOO
The only unanimous choice? Joey Chestnut in competitive eating…..!!!
That is a good one.
I think Takeru Kobayashi would get some votes! Too bad he got himself banned from the Nathan's contest.Quote: DRichQuote: SOOPOO
The only unanimous choice? Joey Chestnut in competitive eating…..!!!
That is a good one.
link to original post
Quote: SOOPOO
NBA—- Jordan, James, Chamberlain, Byrd, Johnson could all get votes. No clear answer.
The only unanimous choice? Joey Chestnut in competitive eating…..!!!
link to original post
Most NBA historical rankings I have seen have Kareem and Bill Russell in the top 4 with MJ/LeBron above Wilt/Magic/Bird. Magic, Wilt, and Bird usually 5-7.
imo the NBA should raise the rim to 11 feet
right now, a very lot of players can go up to about the top of the backboard - about 13 feet up - the players have evolved so much
when I first noticed this years ago I thought it was really cool
but now I don't - it's getting kinna tired
the players sometimes look like they're playing on a miniature court
if they raised it - it would create and new and interesting kind of competition for rebounds and blocked shots in the low post
a lot of the 7 footers barely have to jump to get rebounds anymore - if they raised it they would have to jump - and timing would be more important
and it would bring a new and maybe difficult and surely interesting challenge to the outside shooters
if they don't do it - and as far as I know there's nothing in the works - I believe in about 10 years you will have many guys that can go up a foot over the top of the backboard
that's when I will lose interest completely and stop watching
the first pro leagues was founded in 1898
at that time - there were probably not more than a couple of players on each team who could jump up and touch the rim
it's really time for a change
.
Quote: mcallister3200
Most NBA historical rankings I have seen have Kareem and Bill Russell in the top 4 with MJ/LeBron above Wilt/Magic/Bird. Magic, Wilt, and Bird usually 5-7.
link to original post
I don't doubt what you say but I can't picture anybody saying there was a player better than Magic Johnson
not that I ever saw - well, I guess MJ maybe could be considered his equal
as much as I respect Bill Russell I don't believe he is over those guys
people always point to him re the Celtics many championships - they had another fabulous player on that team - the underrated imo John Havlicek
as great as he was defensively, Russ was not strong offensively - he had a weak field goal % and a very weak foul shooting % - and he was not strong handling the ball
I'm sorry - but I would say no way as to him being above Wilt - just no way at all
I think those rankings may be factoring in Championships won - and I don't think that's fair
Kareem and Bill Russell had great, great teammates that Wilt didn't have for many years until he got to Philly and the Lakers where his teams did win Championships but not as many as Russ. I don't think anything can be taken away from what he did - not in my book
and Wilt was fabulous defensively as well as incredibly fabulous offensively - 50 p.p.g. one year
to be honest, I haven't watched enough of Lebron to know how to rank him
interestingly, to me anyway - Kareem was way, way, behind Russ & Wilt in rebounds
.
Make the basket automatically adjust to twice the height of the shooter. That would be exciting.
.
when the talking heads talk about Russell they always talk about all of his Championships and sometimes mention the year he and his Celts lost to Wilt's 6ers
I've never ever heard them talk aboout the other year Russ and his Celts lost - to the '58 St. Louis Hawks, and the truly great yet all but completely forgotten Bob Pettit
in the 6th and final game of the series Pettit destroyed the Celts with 50 points and 25 rebounds
old school Pettit was as tough as nails - he played part of the '57 season with a fractured wrist and a cast on his left arm
.
1968 Elvin Hayes and Houston vs. Lew Alcindor (Jabbar) and UCLA - one of the greatest college games ever -
before the game Hayes ran his mouth that he was better than Alcindor, and Houston won and Hayes outplayed Alcindor
but Alcindor was playing with an injured eye and an eye patch - after the game Hayes minimized Alcindor's injury
many years later nobody would ever say that Elvin Hayes was greater than Jabbar - although Elvin was truly great
.
this cbs news story (linked) is the only place I could find actual footage of the game itself - blurry - but still fun
https://www.facebook.com/CBSSports/videos/history-in-the-astrodome-ucla-vs-houston-1968-tease/10155576611906773/
.
Mickey Mantle baseball card is expected to sell for more than $10 million
the headline says $6 million but down in the story itself it says $10 million
.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/08/12/mickey-mantle-card/
.
Albert is closing in on 700 homers
Cards believe he will do it
he's got 692 - he's stated that this will be his final season
he will be (if he does it) one of only 4 who have ever done it in MLB history
what a great player - has had a decline in production in recent years
he's 42 now
if he does it he'll be a member of the most exclusive club in the world:
𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟳𝟬𝟬 𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗯
.https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ls/7858795001/
Quote: gordonm888
Ohtani is also an amazing athlete but his batting stats are closer to 𝙃𝙖𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙣 𝙆𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙬
link to original post
Killebrew was one of very few bright spots for the very lowly Washington Senators early in his career
because of your post I just looked at his stats
he ended up with 573 homers
but the Senators had him on the bench the first 5 years of his career - and he played in only 113 games in all those years - he was very young - just 18 in his first year
he hit only 11 homers total in those 5 years he was riding the bench - the first year they started him he hit 42
he likely would have been in the 700 club if that had not happened to him
what a shame
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/killeha01.shtml
.
Quote: lilredrooster________________
Albert is closing in on 700 homers
Cards believe he will do it
he's got 692 - he's stated that this will be his final season
he will be (if he does it) one of only 4 who have ever done it in MLB history
what a great player - has had a decline in production in recent years
he's 42 now
if he does it he'll be a member of the most exclusive club in the world:
𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟳𝟬𝟬 𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗯
.https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ls/7858795001/
link to original post
There are currently two in that club as far as I’m concerned.
I think today Iowa was the first team to ever score only 7 points without a touchdown.
Quote: DRich
I think today Iowa was the first team to ever score only 7 points without a touchdown.
link to original post
Iowa made a field goal in the 1st quarter and two safeties, 1 each in the 3rd and 4th quarters. They beat South Dakota State 7-3.
I understand that the 2nd safety came on the last play of the game. Many Iowa fans were upset about that last safety because they preferred that the score be 5-3 -which is a weird score and would be more reflective of the terrible game that it was.
Quote: DRichI thought this was interesting:
I think today Iowa was the first team to ever score only 7 points without a touchdown.
link to original post
A 1 to 0 score in football is NOT impossible. There are jurisdictions where that score is awarded for a forfeit.
tuttigym
Quote: gordonm888Quote: DRich
I think today Iowa was the first team to ever score only 7 points without a touchdown.
link to original post
Iowa made a field goal in the 1st quarter and two safeties, 1 each in the 3rd and 4th quarters. They beat South Dakota State 7-3.
I understand that the 2nd safety came on the last play of the game. Many Iowa fans were upset about that last safety because they preferred that the score be 5-3 -which is a weird score and would be more reflective of the terrible game that it was.
link to original post
I recorded and watched that whole game. It was miserable football.
The Iowa safety in the fourth quarter did not come on the last play. It came with about four minutes left in the game. I was one that was disappointed, I also liked the 5-3 score.
Quote: JimRockford
There are currently two in that club as far as I’m concerned.
link to original post
So EVERY HR that Bonds and Mcquire (sp.) hit was because of PED's, and Ruth and Arron were bigger and stronger than Frank Thomas or Roger Maris or Mickey Mantle etc. There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance.
Can anyone tell me why there is such hyperventilating about "exit velocity" when even though balls are not HR's the "exit velocity" is proclaimed. "Exit velocity" is the product of pitch speed and bat speed. As far as HR's are concerned, it would be more informative of what the bat speed was than the "exit velocity" IMHO. One might make a valid comparison of club head speed in golf and driving distance.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: JimRockford
There are currently two in that club as far as I’m concerned.
link to original post
So EVERY HR that Bonds and Mcquire (sp.) hit was because of PED's, and Ruth and Arron were bigger and stronger than Frank Thomas or Roger Maris or Mickey Mantle etc. There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance.
tuttigym
link to original post
I am reluctant to be rude, but that is utter nonsense. There is plenty of science about the physiological effects of steroids, and there was more than enough science to motivate players to take steroids. Baseball analysts have studied the link between steroids and improved performance in MLB players. If you wish to argue that there is no science that specific links steroids with singles or walk percentage, than I would claim that you are denying an entire metaverse of scientific study on steroids that provides more fundamental understanding of their effect on athletic performance.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: JimRockford
There are currently two in that club as far as I’m concerned.
link to original post
So EVERY HR that Bonds and Mcquire (sp.) hit was because of PED's, and Ruth and Arron were bigger and stronger than Frank Thomas or Roger Maris or Mickey Mantle etc. There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance.
Can anyone tell me why there is such hyperventilating about "exit velocity" when even though balls are not HR's the "exit velocity" is proclaimed. "Exit velocity" is the product of pitch speed and bat speed. As far as HR's are concerned, it would be more informative of what the bat speed was than the "exit velocity" IMHO. One might make a valid comparison of club head speed in golf and driving distance.
tuttigym
link to original post
I see Gordon already refuted this totally nonsensical post. Steroids would not have turned me into a home run hitter. NO ONE is saying just taking steroids is the sole, or even main, factor in hitting home runs. What is known is that the occasional 380 foot long out turns into a 390 foot homer. Enough times to make a 20 homer guy a 25 homer guy. That’s it. It’s really quite simple.
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: tuttigymQuote: JimRockford
There are currently two in that club as far as I’m concerned.
link to original post
So EVERY HR that Bonds and Mcquire (sp.) hit was because of PED's, and Ruth and Arron were bigger and stronger than Frank Thomas or Roger Maris or Mickey Mantle etc. There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance.
Can anyone tell me why there is such hyperventilating about "exit velocity" when even though balls are not HR's the "exit velocity" is proclaimed. "Exit velocity" is the product of pitch speed and bat speed. As far as HR's are concerned, it would be more informative of what the bat speed was than the "exit velocity" IMHO. One might make a valid comparison of club head speed in golf and driving distance.
tuttigym
link to original post
I see Gordon already refuted this totally nonsensical post. Steroids would not have turned me into a home run hitter. NO ONE is saying just taking steroids is the sole, or even main, factor in hitting home runs. What is known is that the occasional 380 foot long out turns into a 390 foot homer. Enough times to make a 20 homer guy a 25 homer guy. That’s it. It’s really quite simple.
link to original post
In addition PEDs reduce muscle recovery time and injury recovery time, so they add more at bats to each season. They also add more seasons to a career. Bonds was the best player of his era, but he chose to boost his numbers by violating MLB rules. You don’t think Hank Aaron would have hit a few more with some extra strength? Bonds doesn’t deserve the career or season HR record.
Writers association is a total clown show for re-writing history and pretending that they, as a group, themselves weren’t knowingly nod nod wink wink going along with it at the time. Bud Selig is almost entirely responsible for that era of inflated numbers and drug abuse and they put him in the Hall of Fame for it. Selig, Bagwell, Pudge and Ortiz all in what a joke, Ortiz resume was substandard even without his involvement in the PED story.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: tuttigymQuote: JimRockford
There are currently two in that club as far as I’m concerned.
link to original post
So EVERY HR that Bonds and Mcquire (sp.) hit was because of PED's, and Ruth and Arron were bigger and stronger than Frank Thomas or Roger Maris or Mickey Mantle etc. There is NO science that has actually linked steroids with batting/hitting performance.
tuttigym
link to original post
I am reluctant to be rude, but that is utter nonsense. There is plenty of science about the physiological effects of steroids, and there was more than enough science to motivate players to take steroids. Baseball analysts have studied the link between steroids and improved performance in MLB players. If you wish to argue that there is no science that specific links steroids with singles or walk percentage, than I would claim that you are denying an entire metaverse of scientific study on steroids that provides more fundamental understanding of their effect on athletic performance.
link to original post
What is "utter nonsense" is your comparing "physiological effects" to hitting and batting performance. Please cite the "science" that directly corelates steroids to hand-eye coordination, reflexes of making contact with a 95 mph fastball, swing mechanics, or even bat speed. I certainly acknowledge that steroids can make physiological differences allowing for increased training in strength activities and even performance in some athletic activities but not all. So are you "arguing" that there are scientific links of steroids with "singles and walk percentage? That sentence was a bit confusing. More later, time for lunch.
You and others seem to infer that "strength" is the primary ingredient to hitting HR's. It is not.
tuttigym
Quote: SOOPOOI see Gordon already refuted this totally nonsensical post. Steroids would not have turned me into a home run hitter. NO ONE is saying just taking steroids is the sole, or even main, factor in hitting home runs.
Yes they are. No one is talking about the incredible skill it takes to even hit a baseball. Frank Thomas is a huge human being arguably bigger and stronger than Bonds or Aaron, yet his HR's total doesn't approach those individuals. What is the difference? He played during those "steroid" years. Do you suppose he was a user? If so, why not 70 HR's in a season for him? if not, why not 70 HR's in a season for him? His physicality certainly was available for such an achievement.
Quote: SOOPOOWhat is known is that the occasional 380 foot long out turns into a 390 foot homer. Enough times to make a 20 homer guy a 25 homer guy. That’s it. It’s really quite simple.
link to original post
There are many 380 ft homers achieved every year simply by being in the right ball park or pulled to the shortest "porches" in baseball, and there are lots of 390 ft outs too. Ineffective example, I am afraid.
tuttigym
Quote: mcallister3200The fact that they didn’t implement testing until 2000’s when they knew use was rampant for over a decade tells us the MLB told players they should take steroids without explicitly telling them to take them. In all reality they encouraged by that massive unwritten rule book that has always existed in baseball.
"Rampant" use? OK, so how come there only a couple of users that hit extraordinary numbers of HR's? Based on the claims of some, there should have been 20, 30, or more players swatting 50+ HR's a year every year for at least 10 years. Right? Didn't happen, did it? How come?
tuttigym
Quote: JimRockford
In addition PEDs reduce muscle recovery time and injury recovery time, so they add more at bats to each season.
How many more at bats? Give us some numbers, i.e., by comparing his contemporaries numbers to his.
Quote: JimRockfordThey also add more seasons to a career. Bonds was the best player of his era, but he chose to boost his numbers by violating MLB rules. You don’t think Hank Aaron would have hit a few more with some extra strength? Bonds doesn’t deserve the career or season HR record.
link to original post
There were NO rules against steroid use during his playing years, so there were no violations when he played. As a parallel, pitchers used "foreign substances" a lot and won games, yet their records still stand. How come? I think you should call for those pitchers and their records to be expunged and sanitized, if you are consistent.
Aaron, "more strength"? How much and how would you measure it, and how many more HR's? One other thing, how do you know that Mr. Aaron was NOT a user?
Recovery time, let's see. How much recovery time is necessary to regain full batting strength? I mean the usual amount of time between AB's is at least 2-3 innings of play right, maybe 20 + minutes? Pro golfers during a tournament swing 100+ times while walking up and down hills for 7 miles or so, yet they manage to continue to hit the golf ball between 100+ to 300+ yards all day long. How do they manage their "recovery time"?
tuttigym
Quote: DRichJust legalize PED's, we deserve the entertainment.
link to original post
So instead of a real rebuttal, just cave, right DRich?
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: DRichJust legalize PED's, we deserve the entertainment.
link to original post
So instead of a real rebuttal, just cave, right DRich?
tuttigym
link to original post
Absolutely!! I don't care about their health. I only care about my entertainment.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: JimRockford
In addition PEDs reduce muscle recovery time and injury recovery time, so they add more at bats to each season.
How many more at bats? Give us some numbers, i.e., by comparing his contemporaries numbers to his.Quote: JimRockfordThey also add more seasons to a career. Bonds was the best player of his era, but he chose to boost his numbers by violating MLB rules. You don’t think Hank Aaron would have hit a few more with some extra strength? Bonds doesn’t deserve the career or season HR record.
link to original post
There were NO rules against steroid use during his playing years, so there were no violations when he played. As a parallel, pitchers used "foreign substances" a lot and won games, yet their records still stand. How come? I think you should call for those pitchers and their records to be expunged and sanitized, if you are consistent.
Aaron, "more strength"? How much and how would you measure it, and how many more HR's? One other thing, how do you know that Mr. Aaron was NOT a user?
Recovery time, let's see. How much recovery time is necessary to regain full batting strength? I mean the usual amount of time between AB's is at least 2-3 innings of play right, maybe 20 + minutes? Pro golfers during a tournament swing 100+ times while walking up and down hills for 7 miles or so, yet they manage to continue to hit the golf ball between 100+ to 300+ yards all day long. How do they manage their "recovery time"?
tuttigym
link to original post
I'm sorry, tuttigym but you don't get to establish the protocols for scientific proof. If I told you that there was scientific proof that seatbelts are safe, you might very well point out that there is no such proof specifically for the kind of car I drive, a 2012 Acura MDX with about 120,000 miles on it. Therefore you might claim that the science doesn't support a presumption that wearing seat belts in my car improves my safety. But that's not the scientific process. As I recall, you have posted in other threads that you have very little formal math or science training and have claimed to never have math beyond the 3rd grade level - so why are you lecturing us about the scientific process and what constitutes scientific proof?
I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and to post it -which you're certainly doing. Go for it! But I'm entitled to ignore your opinion if I want, and I will do that. I will go back to watching the US Open (tennis.)
Quote: tuttigymQuote: JimRockford
In addition PEDs reduce muscle recovery time and injury recovery time, so they add more at bats to each season.
How many more at bats? Give us some numbers, i.e., by comparing his contemporaries numbers to his.Quote: JimRockfordThey also add more seasons to a career. Bonds was the best player of his era, but he chose to boost his numbers by violating MLB rules. You don’t think Hank Aaron would have hit a few more with some extra strength? Bonds doesn’t deserve the career or season HR record.
link to original post
There were NO rules against steroid use during his playing years, so there were no violations when he played. As a parallel, pitchers used "foreign substances" a lot and won games, yet their records still stand. How come? I think you should call for those pitchers and their records to be expunged and sanitized, if you are consistent.
Steroids have been banned from MLB since 1991. Bonds cheated and he knew it. I don’t have the authority to expunge or sanitize MLB records. I’m just sharing my opinion. However I don’t give a pass to pitchers who juiced. Who are we taking about? What records?
Quote:Aaron, "more strength"? How much and how would you measure it, and how many more HR's? One other thing, how do you know that Mr. Aaron was NOT a user?
We can’t know how much Aaron would have benefited if he had used PEDs, but there is no evidence that he did. Likewise we can’t know how many HRs Bonds would have hit if he was clean. That’s my point.
Quote:Recovery time, let's see. How much recovery time is necessary to regain full batting strength? I mean the usual amount of time between AB's is at least 2-3 innings of play right, maybe 20 + minutes? Pro golfers during a tournament swing 100+ times while walking up and down hills for 7 miles or so, yet they manage to continue to hit the golf ball between 100+ to 300+ yards all day long. How do they manage their "recovery time"?
tuttigym
link to original post
Muscle recovery may not be much of a factor in hitting. I’ll concede that, but injury recovery and longevity are.
30 year old Aaron Judge crushed his 54th homer of the season for the Yankees last night
from the article______
"Switch-hitter Mickey Mantle notched 54 homers in 1961, while lefty Babe Ruth reached that total in 1920, which he later topped with 59 in ’21 and 60 in ’27.
Judge, whose blistering pace has put him in position to break Roger Maris’ American League record of 61, is now on track to hit 65 home runs before the season is done. The Yankees have 27 games remaining."
https://www.mlb.com/news/aaron-judge-hits-54th-home-run-of-2022
if he hits more than 61 the only players who would be ahead of him considering both the American and National leagues would be the steroid users Bonds, McGwire and Sosa
Sosa has continually denied steroid use but reports are out there that he has tested positive
.
Quote: gordonm888
I'm sorry, tuttigym but you don't get to establish the protocols for scientific proof. If I told you that there was scientific proof that seatbelts are safe, you might very well point out that there is no such proof specifically for the kind of car I drive, a 2012 Acura MDX with about 120,000 miles on it. Therefore you might claim that the science doesn't support a presumption that wearing seat belts in my car improves my safety. But that's not the scientific process. As I recall, you have posted in other threads that you have very little formal math or science training and have claimed to never have math beyond the 3rd grade level - so why are you lecturing us about the scientific process and what constitutes scientific proof?
I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and to post it -which you're certainly doing. Go for it! But I'm entitled to ignore your opinion if I want, and I will do that. I will go back to watching the US Open (tennis.)
link to original post
First, I want to thank you for addressing my post. There are many who would not do so.
1. My background includes human physiology and sports science. My master thesis was a science process-based physics analysis paper that was the shortest thesis (at the time) in the college's history. It was only 18 pages long. If you are not familiar with research papers such as thesis and dissertations for advanced degrees, most exceed 50 pages plus the bibliography and other inclusions. The math that I brag about is 4th grade arithmetic not 3rd grade. I use it for my gambling without any excuses because the other "math" shown on the pages of this forum have little basis in the reality of play, IMHO.
2. It seems that you do not know how a science based process on steroid use and hitting HR's would entail, so let me clue you in. Two groups of subjects: one clean and one taking steroids; both groups doing the same exercise and weight training regimens; then monitoring their play for at least 1500 AB's and recording the results. Even then there would be plausible discrepancies as to the pitching, bat speed, kinds of pitches hit, etc.
3. Your example about seat belts is apples and oranges a beyond a real stretch of parallel science.
4. Science is not about consensus or ignoring certain realities. It is about questioning and getting informed over and over again.
tuttigym
Quote: JimRockfordSteroids have been banned from MLB since 1991. Bonds cheated and he knew it. I don’t have the authority to expunge or sanitize MLB records. I’m just sharing my opinion. However I don’t give a pass to pitchers who juiced. Who are we taking about? What records?
Thanks for responding to my post. OK so Bonds "broke the rules." However, the "rules" were not enforced or even mentioned or discussed during his playing time. He was never tested or warned or excluded or benched. He was allowed to play. There was no concern at the time, and I do not believe one can positively state the genesis of his steroid use. So, if he was "cheating," why didn't baseball void all the games he played and the scores he accounted for? You know, like when the NCAA causes teams to forfeit games because of team violations of rules.
When I drive my car, I exceed the speed limit quite often (breaking rules), but those laws are not enforced all the time or not even witnessed, so should I be required to self-report? I know that is a bit of stretch.
Quote: JimRockford
We can’t know how much Aaron would have benefited if he had used PEDs, but there is no evidence that he did. Likewise we can’t know how many HRs Bonds would have hit if he was clean. That’s my point.
Exactly, because there is no science. There is only conjecture and assumption. There is no proof that Sammy Sosa used steroids either, and he denies the allegations.
Quote: JimRockford
Muscle recovery may not be much of a factor in hitting. I’ll concede that, but injury recovery and longevity are.
Thanks for the affirmation. BTW that bogus argument (muscle recovery) is often used to "prove" steroid use.
tuttigym
linked is an article from sciencedaily.com re the effects of steroid use
a couple of quotes from the article:
"As Tobin's paper notes, Babe Ruth's record of 60 home runs in a single season stood for 34 years until Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961. For the next 35 years, no player hit more than 52 home runs in one season. But between 1998 and 2006, players hit more than 60 home runs in a season six times. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001--topping Maris' mark by an astonishing 20 percent.
According to Tobin, the explosion in home runs coincides with the dawn of the "steroid era" in sports in the mid-1990s, and that surge quickly dropped to historic levels in 2003, when Major League Baseball instituted steroid testing.
While the increase in home runs has been clouded by suspected use of performance-enhancing steroids, many have wondered why home-running hitting would be particularly vulnerable to performance enhancement. They have also asked if it is even physically and physiologically plausible that steroids could produce effects of the magnitude observed. The answer to both questions, says Tobin, is "yes."
the pics shows Bonds and McGWire before and after steroid use
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919164815.htm
.
Quote: lilredrooster__________
linked is an article from sciencedaily.com re the effects of steroid use
a couple of quotes from the article:
"As Tobin's paper notes, Babe Ruth's record of 60 home runs in a single season stood for 34 years until Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961. For the next 35 years, no player hit more than 52 home runs in one season. But between 1998 and 2006, players hit more than 60 home runs in a season six times. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001--topping Maris' mark by an astonishing 20 percent.
According to Tobin, the explosion in home runs coincides with the dawn of the "steroid era" in sports in the mid-1990s, and that surge quickly dropped to historic levels in 2003, when Major League Baseball instituted steroid testing.
While the increase in home runs has been clouded by suspected use of performance-enhancing steroids, many have wondered why home-running hitting would be particularly vulnerable to performance enhancement. They have also asked if it is even physically and physiologically plausible that steroids could produce effects of the magnitude observed. The answer to both questions, says Tobin, is "yes."
the pics shows Bonds and McGWire before and after steroid use
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919164815.htm
.
link to original post
That is not science. That is speculation and guessing by one individual. There has been speculation regarding "juiced" baseballs too. One other thing, why was there not an increase in batting averages and, again, with so many players suspected of taking steroids, why only two hitters with inflated HR numbers? The side by side pictures are years apart and bodies change with age, diet, metabolism, training regimen (weight training), etc.
As a personal example, I started weight training at the age of 42. Without ANY chemical help, my chest went from 48" to 54" and my arms went from16" to 20+" in the space of 10 months. I trained daily 2+ hours.
I am not impressed with the article, but that is just me.
tuttigym
from the article:
"As Tobin's paper notes, Babe Ruth's record of 60 home runs in a single season stood for 34 years until Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961. For the next 35 years, no player hit more than 52 home runs in one season. But between 1998 and 2006, players hit more than 60 home runs in a season six times. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001--topping Maris' mark by an astonishing 20 percent.
According to Tobin, the explosion in home runs coincides with the dawn of the "steroid era" in sports in the mid-1990s, and that surge quickly dropped to historic levels in 2003, when Major League Baseball instituted steroid testing."
criminal investigators as well as other investigators have a saying that they often repeat:
𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙨
.
I've always suspected you were from a different planet. Now confirmed, because those results in ten months are not even remotely possible for a human being. Not to mention, very few people could ever achieve 20" arms no matter how many years they worked at itQuote: tuttigymWithout ANY chemical help, my chest went from 48" to 54" and my arms went from16" to 20+" in the space of 10 months.
Quote: Ace2I've always suspected you were from a different planet. Now confirmed, because those results in ten months are not even remotely possible for a human being. Not to mention, very few people could ever achieve 20" arms no matter how many years they worked at itQuote: tuttigymWithout ANY chemical help, my chest went from 48" to 54" and my arms went from16" to 20+" in the space of 10 months.
link to original post
So, you are calling me a liar. Well Ace, you are just pathetic, and you need to get out more and experience what is possible in the real world, but that won't happen will it?
tuttigym
Quote: TobinReasonable suspicion
Tobin is quick to acknowledge that athletes in many sports today achieve at a higher level than athletes of the past, and that this trend is not evidence of cheating. He also points out that many other changes, including adjustments in ballpark dimensions, league expansions, entry of African-American athletes, and lowering of the pitcher's mound, could affect major league batting--although he says that none of those changes coincide with the sudden burst of home run production in the mid-1990s.
"Physics cannot tell us whether a particular home run was steroid-assisted, or even whether an extraordinary individual performance indicates the use of illicit means," says Tobin.
But analysis of the physics, combined with physiology, yields telling results. "These results certainly do not prove that recent performances are tainted, but they suggest that some suspicion is reasonable," he concludes.
Note: SUSPICION that is NOT science.
If one reads this article with an open mind, it says nothing scientific with the exception: "Physics cannot tell us whether a particular home run was steroid-assisted, or even whether an extraordinary individual performance indicates the use of illicit mean." and "These results certainly do NOT (emphasis) prove that recent performances are tainted,...."
So if that is the "science" you are relying upon, you need to jump ship and find another bandwagon.
tuttigym
tuttigym
Yeah, but the tell for 'roids is its effects on other areas of the body. For example, did your face change to the point where you almost looked like a different person?Quote: tuttigymQuote: lilredrooster__________
linked is an article from sciencedaily.com re the effects of steroid use
a couple of quotes from the article:
"As Tobin's paper notes, Babe Ruth's record of 60 home runs in a single season stood for 34 years until Roger Maris hit 61 homers in 1961. For the next 35 years, no player hit more than 52 home runs in one season. But between 1998 and 2006, players hit more than 60 home runs in a season six times. Barry Bonds hit 73 home runs in 2001--topping Maris' mark by an astonishing 20 percent.
According to Tobin, the explosion in home runs coincides with the dawn of the "steroid era" in sports in the mid-1990s, and that surge quickly dropped to historic levels in 2003, when Major League Baseball instituted steroid testing.
While the increase in home runs has been clouded by suspected use of performance-enhancing steroids, many have wondered why home-running hitting would be particularly vulnerable to performance enhancement. They have also asked if it is even physically and physiologically plausible that steroids could produce effects of the magnitude observed. The answer to both questions, says Tobin, is "yes."
the pics shows Bonds and McGWire before and after steroid use
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919164815.htm
.
link to original post
That is not science. That is speculation and guessing by one individual. There has been speculation regarding "juiced" baseballs too. One other thing, why was there not an increase in batting averages and, again, with so many players suspected of taking steroids, why only two hitters with inflated HR numbers? The side by side pictures are years apart and bodies change with age, diet, metabolism, training regimen (weight training), etc.
As a personal example, I started weight training at the age of 42. Without ANY chemical help, my chest went from 48" to 54" and my arms went from16" to 20+" in the space of 10 months. I trained daily 2+ hours.
I am not impressed with the article, but that is just me.
tuttigym
link to original post
Quote: tuttigymQuote: Ace2I've always suspected you were from a different planet. Now confirmed, because those results in ten months are not even remotely possible for a human being. Not to mention, very few people could ever achieve 20" arms no matter how many years they worked at itQuote: tuttigymWithout ANY chemical help, my chest went from 48" to 54" and my arms went from16" to 20+" in the space of 10 months.
link to original post
So, you are calling me a liar. Well Ace, you are just pathetic, and you need to get out more and experience what is possible in the real world, but that won't happen will it?
tuttigym
link to original post
3 days suspension for tuttigym for a personal insult
Quote: ChumpChangeI went to a baseball game in 1998 and there was a baseball video game around. So I played and hit so many home runs. I figured if pro baseball players just played this video game their home run average would skyrocket. If the videogame disappeared, their homerun averages would drop to normal if they never played the game to begin with. Really, who needs to watch pro players playing baseball when I'm killing it on the video game with my own home runs? I just need to get into the stadium first.
ChumpChange's posts may not be real logical
but he makes me laugh
.
