Broken Bat - Discussion Forum: Real Life Players Broken Bat Ratings

Forum >> Discussions >> Real Life Players Broken Bat Ratings

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#37629	07/26/2016 12:38:23 pm
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	Fair enough newt

#37636	07/26/2016 3:12:54 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Lifting weights changes your body chemistry. As does drinking milk. I'm not advocating for the use of steroids. I'm just pointing out that it is a fairly arbitrary distinction. What about drinking protein shakes. Certainly not natural. Look at the players 50 years ago and the players today. That's not all steroids. And its obviously not "natural", what ever that means. BTW, you are basically eliminating any player from 1885 through 2016 to be used as a measuring stick, since there is no way of knowing which players were actually on steroids. I prefer to look at it scientifically. If there is a max power, use that for your max scale. Who cares who the guy is or what he did to get there. The point is to create a line to compare to. Lets say 55+ HRs is 20 power. Babe Ruth and Jimmie Foxx fall into that category too, so why stress about who else falls in there. BTW, I put drugs in my body every day. Every time I eat a multivitamin I am gaining an unnatural advantage because without it I wouldn't have the improved chemical balance in my body that I have with it. Again, not advocating PEDs, but this concept of "natural" drives me crazy because it is such an arbitrary and inaccurate definition. Updated Tuesday, July 26 2016 @ 3:23:01 pm PDT

#37644	07/26/2016 5:08:02 pm
Huaraches25 Joined: 05/01/2016 Posts: 151 Inactive	I doubt they had steroids before the mid 70s but idk

#37646	07/26/2016 8:58:10 pm
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	Bonds, McGwire and the those from that era...it's really hard to saw what their natural ability. Bonds on the Pirates had a great combo of speed & power, but probably wasn't the most powerful player at that time. Later with the Giants, that a different story, but... Ruth I think probably had the most power compared to those around him. He basically is responsible (perhaps with other factors) from the shift from the dead ball to live ball era. Steve

#37647	07/26/2016 10:36:36 pm
Mig2015 Joined: 06/17/2015 Posts: 162 Inactive	In general, I try to be as forgiving of steroid era players as possible. I believe that anyone who has not been proven roiding (With a few exceptions of course cough cough Bonds cough cough) should be given a fair shake at the hall. Normally, I look solely at statistics when determining a players ability. However, lets be real, we all know that Barry Bonds took steroids. I mean, come on. Statistically, Bonds IS the greatest hitter of all time. Period. But there will always be an asterisk by his name and for good reason. I'm going to focus on his age 39 season specifically in a minute, but let's get to some numbers. Alright, first of all, his career home run percentage with the Pirates was a solid 4.91%. For him to have broken the home run record with that percentage, he would have needed about 18,000 at bats. (Equivalent to about 33 FULL seasons). Then, he had a whopping 9.36% hr percentage with the Giants. That is simply incredible for a number of reasons. One, he played in two of the MLB's most famous (or infamous if you prefer) pitchers parks. I don't know how he did that with or without steroids. Babe Ruth had a short pourch in right field for him to douse with HRs. Bonds had swirling winds and a high wall in right field complete with extremely deep gaps. Two, when he had his best seasons, he was over 35 years old. You just don't see that anymore, or anytime before the 90s. Funny how old guys all of a sudden didn't decline as quickly in the 90s and early 2000s. :/ Anyway, back to the 2004 season-- it was Bonds' last amazing season as he got injured the following season and Father Time finally "caught up" with him after that. (He hit 48 home runs in his final two season) In the 2004 season, Bonds recorded an MLB record 232 walks and 120 IBB... EH HEM... 232 walks and 120 IBB. Like what? Pitchers were that scared of a 39 year old geezer. There are only 10 current MLB players that are 39 years old or older, and the only one who is even remotely close to Bonds' success is David Ortiz. And really, Ortiz is not even in the same league if you go on a completely statistical basis. Oh, by the way, Bonds put up a 12.1 hr percentage in 2004... Stanton's best single season percentage was 9.7% in half of a season last year. So, yeah. Call me skeptical, but if Bonds didn't take steroids, then I'll be drafted next year with my 79 MPH fastball. Updated Tuesday, July 26 2016 @ 10:46:15 pm PDT

#37648	07/26/2016 11:44:28 pm
admin Joined: 01/27/2010 Posts: 4985 Administrator	I don't think there are much questions that Bonds took steroids. There are a fair number of people that contend that his motivation was to a result of the fame & fortune that he saw falling to Canseco and McGwire. Not sure what the average age of most folks here is, but I was in high school in the SF Bay Area when McGwire and Canseco (the bash brothers) came into being. I was a huge fan and really had no idea that they were steroid users. There was this explosion in run production, but there would be all these stories about the baseball...it was spun tighter or the something to that effect. I really think most of the teams and media must have had a pretty good idea about steroid usage and did nothing. Too me, that's really the biggest tragedy. Now the media bashes these guys left and right...but where were they? Noticeably quiet at the time! Steve

#37649	07/27/2016 3:06:02 am
amalric7 Joined: 01/20/2016 Posts: 2236 New York Lancers V.4	Agreed, Steve. And of course its only fair to mention that baseball players had for generations taken uppers, downers, and anything else they could find to try and get an advantage. Steroids perhaps amplified that because the results/changes in players were so very noticeable, and the press belatedly took steroid users to task.

#37651	07/27/2016 7:38:13 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9592 Haverhill Halflings III.1	That's what I was trying to get at. Players throughout history have always tried taking things to get a competitive edge. When it works, those players progress through the system. The system is built to encourage the use of performance enhancing things. There are plenty of performance enhancing supplements that players take, which are considered fine. Steroids only got a bad name because they were too effective (and had bad side effects). I just don't see the line between saying its "natural" to drink protein shakes with raw eggs (something no sane person would do voluntarily if they weren't trying to bulk up) and doing steroids. Its all unnatural. No one looks like today's typical athletes through "natural" means.

#37673	07/27/2016 6:40:21 pm
Mig2015 Joined: 06/17/2015 Posts: 162 Inactive	I agree with all of your assessments. Particularly Rock, you are absolutely right. Where do we draw the line? It is such a gray area with supplements and all that stuff. And then there's other things athletes do. I don't know if anyone reads SI around here, but there was an article a few weeks ago about an athlete who used weed his entire career. He claimed that he was more relaxed when he played and blah blah blah. But, regardless,he claims it gave him a competitive advantage. If marijuana were legal, where would professional sports draw the line with that or any drugs for that matter.

#37676	07/27/2016 8:42:01 pm
Huaraches25 Joined: 05/01/2016 Posts: 151 Inactive	Nobody has anything on the guy who threw a nohitter tripping on acid