Interesting suggestion about the MLB Steroid Era

[KSB2424 3,083]

As far as what to do with all the records and how to move forward. An attempt to Reconcile the whole era if you will.

 

The suggestion you ask?

 

If a player has been "proven" (and yes that may be a tricky definition) to have used PED's then their records and Cooperstown resume are fair, exect they get <insert a percentage> deduction.

 

Example: Rafael Palmerio his 569 home runs. Well the deduction is, lets make up a number.....20%

 

Now in the record books and on his HOF resume this HR total is actually 455.

 

Not sure how to do this with batting average or pitchers as I have not thought this through, but...ummm...whatcha think?

[Strike 3,975]

There is no way to accurately determine what percentage steriods helped a player, and how much may vary from player to player.

[GobbleDog 816]

The records are officially meaningless and have been for over two decades. Get over it baseball fans.

 

If you really want an even playing field, lift the steroid ban.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

My suggestion, you get caught doing roids, your RECORDS ARE STRICKEN for every year of abuse.

[RLLD 3,455]

There is no way to accurately determine what percentage steriods helped a player, and how much may vary from player to player.

 

Before steriods I believe it was amphetamines, hasn't there always been something?

[KSB2424 3,083]

There is no way to accurately determine what percentage steriods helped a player, and how much may vary from player to player.

 

Thanks Captn Obvioius....which is why we do the best we can to reconcile the era and move on.

 

Is it perfect? Of course not, but It's better than A.ignoring it or B.keeping obvoious HOF'ers out and putting stupid, imaginary askerisks beside things.

[Strike 3,975]

 

Thanks Captn Obvioius....which is why we do the best we can to reconcile the era and move on.

 

Is it perfect? Of course not, but It's better than A.ignoring it or B.keeping obvoious HOF'ers out and putting stupid, imaginary askerisks beside things.

 

Option B is fine by me. If you want to maintain the integrity of the game you exclude those who do wrongs. Now, some people will say that steroids weren't illegal. If those players truly believed that they would have admitted to doing them and not lie about it, some to this day. Sorry, I got no problem excluding those players. They made millions. They'll be fine.

[KSB2424 3,083]

I mean, couldn't there be a way that some nerds could take the statistical averages per year of NON steroid era years for players, then see how much of a bump the steroid era gave them (on average on a macro level) and then use that percentage as the STEROID ERA DEDUCTION that brings them back to the mean. And a better, not perfect, representation of what their stats would/should have been closer too.

[Strike 3,975]

I mean, couldn't there be a way that some nerds could take the statistical averages per year of NON steroid era years for players, then see how much of a bump the steroid era gave them (on average on a macro level) and then use that percentage as the STEROID ERA DEDUCTION.

 

They COULD do a lot of things. The question is whether they SHOULD.

[patweisers44 697]

There are guys from the live-ball era, dead-ball era, steroid era, pre-lowered mounds, post-lowered mounds etc, in the Hall of Fame. This is just another era to compare and contrast. Look how they played relative to the others of the same time. But in all honesty, the Baseball HOF is a joke. Ozzie Focking Smith was a first ballot inductee with over 90% of the votes. As long as the writers continue to be writers, the HOF will remain a joke.

 

Let them all in the Hall...that's my opinion.

[NewbieJr 540]

It's too late to do anything to the 'official' numbers. It's just going to be one of those things where people know the actual record and just ignore the fake record holder. Just pretend they aren't there.

 

It was funny during the all-star game when baseball chose it's four greatest living players, and it was Aaron, Mays, Bench, and Kofax. There was a time when Barry Bonds was the best all around player since Mays. And threatened to become the greatest ever. It's almost like he's shunned from baseball. Like he never even played.

[KSB2424 3,083]

It's too late to do anything to the 'official' numbers.

 

Okay fine. Can we at least get some stat nerds do do this, publish the numbers, for poops and giggles? I think it would be halfway intersting.

 

That the steroid era, on a historical basis, represented a 19.87% (I made it up but whatever the nerds derive) bump in stats. Then we can see and at least have a basis of speculation of "what might have been".

 

For entertainment sake at the very least.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

I mean, couldn't there be a way that some nerds could take the statistical averages per year of NON steroid era years for players, then see how much of a bump the steroid era gave them (on average on a macro level) and then use that percentage as the STEROID ERA DEDUCTION that brings them back to the mean. And a better, not perfect, representation of what their stats would/should have been closer too.

 

 

 

They COULD do a lot of things. The question is whether they SHOULD.

 

+1. They chose to cheat and didn't give a damn about the game or it's history, why anyone gives a damn about their place in the sport is beyond me.

[posty 2,296]

Oh good grief...

[NewbieJr 540]

 

Okay fine. Can we at least get some stat nerds do do this, publish the numbers, for poops and giggles? I think it would be halfway intersting.

 

That the steroid era, on a historical basis, represented a 19.87% (I made it up but whatever the nerds derive) bump in stats. Then we can see and at least have a basis of specualation of "what might have been".

 

For entertainment sake at the very least.

Bonds went from a 35 HR/year guy to 70. And at an age where his 35/yr should have been falling to 25, he was popping 50 out a year. I think that's a 100% increase.

 

Bonds was a 30-30 guy. He MAY have ended with 450 homers. Maybe. Instead, he's the all-time record holder. I think that. if you want to do your experiment, you have to factor in a 50% increase. And that's conservative

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

 

Okay fine. Can we at least get some stat nerds do do this, publish the numbers, for poops and giggles?

 

Here's an article that breaks down Bonds and calculates that he added 98 more homers to his career through steroids, this was while his career was still going.

 

Bonds

[edjr 5,564]

 

Let them all in the Hall...that's my opinion.

 

Smart fella

[KSB2424 3,083]

Bonds went from a 35 HR/year guy to 70. And at an age where his 35/yr should have been falling to 25, he was popping 50 out a year. I think that's a 100% increase.

 

Bonds was a 30-30 guy. He MAY have ended with 450 homers. Maybe. Instead, he's the all-time record holder. I think that. if you want to do your experiment, you have to factor in a 50% increase. And that's conservative

 

See this is why an actual statistical analysis should be done and not somebody's memory. Because yours is wrong.

 

Barry Bonds hit 43 HR's in 1993, at age 28. It was his 3rd highest HR season total of his career. In fact he had only 1 season of over 50 HR's. That was the crazy 73 in 2001.

 

All his seasons were between 30 and 45 HR's per year for most every season he played, over the his whole career. The 73 was the lone outlier.

 

I'm not saying he didn't do PED's, I'm saying your memory is wrong.

[edjr 5,564]

 

See this is why an actual statistical analysis should be done and not somebody's memory. Because yours is wrong.

 

Barry Bonds hit 43 HR's in 1993, at age 28. It was his 3rd highest HR season total of his career. In fact he had only 1 season of over 50 HR's. That was the crazy 73 in 2001.

 

All his seasons were between 30 and 45 HR's per year for most every season he played, over the his whole career. The 73 was the lone outlier.

 

I'm not saying he didn't do PED's, I'm saying your memory is wrong.

 

he hit 45 home runs in 2004 and was walked 223 times OBP of .609 :0

 

He should make the HOF on that one year alone.

 

Unreal plate discipline. Best ever.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

See this is why an actual statistical analysis should be done and not somebody's memory. Because yours is wrong.

 

Barry Bonds hit 43 HR's in 1993, at age 28. It was his 3rd highest HR season total of his career. In fact he had only 1 season of over 50 HR's. That was the crazy 73 in 2001.

 

All his seasons were between 30 and 45 HR's per year for most every season he played, over the his whole career. The 73 was the lone outlier.

 

I'm not saying he didn't do PED's, I'm saying your memory is wrong.

As long as youi're throwing numbers around, Bonds had ONE season of 40 or more home runs in his first ten seasons. One. That's when he was being compared to Mays as a great all-around player. "Miraculously", he hit 40 plus in 7 of his next 9 seasons.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

 

See this is why an actual statistical analysis should be done and not somebody's memory. Because yours is wrong.

 

Barry Bonds hit 43 HR's in 1993, at age 28. It was his 3rd highest HR season total of his career. In fact he had only 1 season of over 50 HR's. That was the crazy 73 in 2001.

 

All his seasons were between 30 and 45 HR's per year for most every season he played, over the his whole career. The 73 was the lone outlier.

 

I'm not saying he didn't do PED's, I'm saying your memory is wrong.

 

So, Newbie says he's a 35 HR a year guy and you use his high and low which comes to 37.5. By the way over his first 14 seasons(before 73), he averaged 33 HR's. Seems like you are the one having some difficulty with the numbers.

[edjr 5,564]

As long as youi're throwing numbers around, Bonds had ONE season of 40 or more home runs in his first ten seasons. One. That's when he was being compared to Mays as a great all-around player. "Miraculously", he hit 40+ in 7 of his next 9 seasons.

 

Why the number 40? he hit 33 or more in 4 years. Oh, the 40 makes your argument. gotit

[KSB2424 3,083]

As long as youi're throwing numbers around, Bonds had ONE season of 40 or more home runs in his first ten seasons. One. That's when he was being compared to Mays as a great all-around player. "Miraculously", he hit 40 plus in 7 of his next 9 seasons.

 

Exactly. Which is why my theory of 20% bump in production seems way more accurate than your 100% you through out there.

 

Thanks.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

Exactly. Which is why my theory of 20% bump in production seems way more accurate than your 100% you through out there.

 

Thanks.

Sorry chump, but Bonds hit 45 home runs in his 18th and 19th seasons. Those would be 25 home run years if he was natural. Maybe. Bonds would not have hit 500 home runs without steroids.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

So, Newbie says he's a 35 HR a year guy and you use his high and low which comes to 37.5. Huge difference.

 

Ummmm, no I was telling Newbie that Bonds only had 1 season that was 100% more than his historical aveage. 1. That all the rest were much closer to the mean.

 

That saying he got a 100% bump in stats due to roids is dumb. On several levels.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

Sorry chump, but Bonds hit 45 home runs in his 18th and 19th seasons. Those would be 25 home run years if he was natural. Maybe. Bonds would not have hit 500 home runs without steroids.

 

 

check out the article I posted earlier for KSB, they had him about 100 less...and he played 2 more seasons after the article was written. So maybe around 640

[NewbieJr 540]

 

Ummmm, no I was telling Newbie that Bonds only had 1 season that was 100% more than his historical aveage. 1. That all the rest were much closer to the mean.

 

That saying he got a 100% bump in stats due to roids is dumb. On several levels.

There were years when it was a 100% increase. In that same post, I said you could use 50% for him. And that's dead on. 500 home runs instead of the farce he's credited (only officially) with.

[KSB2424 3,083]

Sorry chump, but Bonds hit 45 home runs in his 18th and 19th seasons. Those would be 25 home run years if he was natural. Maybe. Bonds would not have hit 500 home runs without steroids.

 

That's a good hypothosis and opinion

 

But at the end of the day thats all it is....NewbieJr's opinion. What I'm saying is lets try the best we can to use historical stats across all of MLB to do a meta-analysis to get an actual percentage.

 

Is it perfect? No

Would it be much better than some radom schmo on a message boards guess? Yes

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

 

Ummmm, no I was telling Newbie that Bonds only had 1 season that was 100% more than his historical aveage. 1. That all the rest were much closer to the mean.

 

That saying he got a 100% bump in stats due to roids is dumb. On several levels.

 

You claimed Newbies memory was wrong, when Newbie said Bonds was a 35 HR guy... I went to Baseball Reference and before the 73 year, Bonds was average 33 a year. So I would say you are the one who's mistaken.

[Mike Honcho 4,033]

 

That's a good hypothosis and opinion

 

But at the end of the day thats all it is....NewbieJr's opinion. What I'm saying is lets try the best we can to use historical stats across all of MLB to do a meta-analysis to get an actual percentage.

 

Is it perfect? No

Would it be much better than some radom schmo on a message boards guess? Yes

 

I friggin posted one.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

 

check out the article I posted earlier for KSB, they had him about 100 less...and he played 2 more seasons after the article was written. So maybe around 640

I'd be shocked if a natural Bonds would have hit 500. Once he started juicing, he stopped going all out for balls and stealing bases. After 96 & 97 (the years I'd bet he started juicing), he all but gave up on stealing bases. If he'd had stayed natural, he would have continued hustling and there's no way he'd have been hitting many home runs in his 18th and 19th seasons. 20-25 maybe. Instead, he's still popping out 45.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

That's a good hypothosis and opinion

 

But at the end of the day thats all it is....NewbieJr's opinion. What I'm saying is lets try the best we can to use historical stats across all of MLB to do a meta-analysis to get an actual percentage.

 

Is it perfect? No

Would it be much better than some radom schmo on a message boards guess? Yes

Problem is, a guy like Mike Piazza, may have taken enough steroids to get some back acne. He may have had a 18% increase in home runs. But a guy like Bonds, who took so many that it altered the size of his cranium, had a much bigger increase. So you can't come up with a tidy little number that will have any accuracy. I still say 50% for Bonds. At least.

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

Here's an article that breaks down Bonds and calculates that he added 98 more homers to his career through steroids, this was while his career was still going.

 

Bonds

 

Interesting article. Thanks. Not exactly what I was talking about but close. 616/714= 86% So they actually only calcuated a 14% Steroid Deduction. Maybe my 20% was too high. The 100% was certainly waaaaayyyy to high.

[edjr 5,564]

I'd be shocked if a natural Bonds would have hit 500. Once he started juicing, he stopped going all out for balls and stealing bases. After 96 & 97 (the years I'd bet he started juicing), he all but gave up on stealing bases. If he'd had stayed natural, he would have continued hustling and there's no way he'd have been hitting many home runs in his 18th and 19th seasons. 20-25 maybe. Instead, he's still popping out 45.

 

Bonds hit 45 when he was 39 ortiz hit 35 at 38. no one juices anymore, there is testing right?

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

You claimed Newbies memory was wrong, when Newbie said Bonds was a 35 HR guy... I went to Baseball Reference and before the 73 year, Bonds was average 33 a year. So I would say you are the one who's mistaken.

 

That's not ALL he said in his post, that was one sentence. The end result of his post was that the Steroid bump should be 100% opposed to the 20% I threw out there.

 

That was the part I was speaking about. HTH

[edjr 5,564]

Problem is, a guy like Mike Piazza, may have taken enough steroids to get some back acne. He may have had a 18% increase in home runs. But a guy like Bonds, who took so many that it altered the size of his cranium, had a much bigger increase. So you can't come up with a tidy little number that will have any accuracy. I still say 50% for Bonds. At least.

 

[JTB 52]

There are guys from the live-ball era, dead-ball era, steroid era, pre-lowered mounds, post-lowered mounds etc, in the Hall of Fame. This is just another era to compare and contrast. Look how they played relative to the others of the same time. But in all honesty, the Baseball HOF is a joke. Ozzie Focking Smith was a first ballot inductee with over 90% of the votes. As long as the ###### writers continue to be ###### writers, the HOF will remain a joke.

 

Let them all in the Hall...that's my opinion.

This, if you are worthy you are worthy.

 

I mentioned this before, but I played in the minor leagues with the Cleveland Indians during the mid 90's - I refer to it as the power era - with Cleveland it was all about power - in the batters box AND on the mound. I know for a fact, both pitchers and hitters were using. There are former teammates who used and were never caught or accused of cheating.

 

The only answer to is to let all in who met the standard.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

Bonds hit 45 when he was 39 ortiz hit 35 at 38. no one juices anymore, there is testing right?

Ortiz is just a big fat guy with a huge swing. He was always what he is today. He wasn't a lean, speedy base stealer. Big immobile fat guys play longer.

[NewbieJr 540]

 

That's not ALL he said in his post, that was one sentence. The end result of his post was that the Steroid bump should be 100% opposed to the 20% I threw out there.

 

That was the part I was speaking about. HTH

50%. 50%. 50%. Understand yet? Yes, the 73 home run year was a 100% steroid bump. But for the career, I said 50%. Should I repeat? Or are you still hung up on 100%?

[KSB2424 3,083]

 

I friggin posted one.

 

And I replied to it. And its wasn't for all players. And the percentage was even less than my 20%

 

So what are y'all even arguing about?