DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

user-pic
paxton17 on Dec 20 at 16:29
+/-

if u could bet on who was not named in the report that has used steriods , you can safely bet your house and kids that DAVID ORTIZ has used roids there is no doubt about it. The mitchell report was just a big waste of money it left out about 70% of people who used steroits as he only had a few sources.. The redsox could breathe a sigh of relief that their trainers didnt rat on the current redsox players or we would hve a lot more to talk about ..Keep juicing papi your going to need a few more cycles to hit joba next year!!

Ortiz is in the first part of this post. I tend to agree with you, but the numbers don't really jump out at you as much as I thought they would.

The most noticeable big name missing? Nolan Ryan.

Before Nolan Ryan, fireballing pitchers did not make it to 35+ at full strength, due to the stress that throwing hard takes on your body, especially your shoulder. Mike Scott?

Then Ryan comes along, and it's now common for 40 year olds to be tossing hard.

And, of course, Clemens got the steroid itch from somewhere (it wasn't Canseco, damnit... that's too easy).

Oh, and speaking of 40 year olds with career years... Kenny Rogers. I loved that red herring during the WS, with the pine tar on his glove... yeah, that's why he dropped 40 straight shutout innings, not the HGH....

I purposely left pitchers out of this, just so I could compare apples to apples. I hadn't thought of Nolan Ryan, but you're right, he deserves a look. Rogers definitely, along with Schilling.

Pitchers are a little harder to pigeonhole based on stats alone, because they can recreate themselves when they get older. A guy who was a decent power pitcher when he was young can change into a very good control pitcher when he gets older. A key stat would be K/9, I think.

Disagree about Brady Anderson. In order for your theory to hold he would have had to say to himself: "The steroids didn't work, I only hit 50 so I won't take them any more." He went right back to his usual production after '96 and played his usual number of games. He was always susceptible to injury because he threw himself about the outfield on defense. The guys on your list who most deserve it, and Caminiti, had sustained increases in production.

Suggestion for a look is Paul O'Neill. His career arc puzzled me before I was even aware of steroids.
He had a sustained increase in New York over his well established level of production in Cincinnati, and it occurred after what should have been his peak years agewise.

MT Head,

O'Neill's jump from his last year in Cincy to his first year in NY would've put him between Jeff Kent and Luis Gonzalez, his jump from his first year in NY to his second year in NY (the strike-shortened year) would've put him between Luis Gonzalez and Mark McGwire, so yep, he probably belongs on this list as well. Good call.

As for Anderson, his numbers did normalize after that season, so maybe he was on then off roids, maybe he got too big (musclebound) and sapped himself of that power. Maybe pitchers found holes in his swing? There are several explanations for why he didn't keep up the pace of 1996, I can't find a logical reason for that increase in 1996, however. Except steroids.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif