Steroids Steroids Steroids
perkdog
Posts: 30,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Do any of you guys give a rats a$$ if The NFL is full of steroids?
I know the majority of posters hate the steroid's in baseball but what about football? I never hear many arguments about todays players being accused of being on the juice? Remember when the mark of a good season by a running back was 1000 yards? Now they are a dime a dozen, the bar has been raised to prolly 1500+ yds now right? Any input?
I know the majority of posters hate the steroid's in baseball but what about football? I never hear many arguments about todays players being accused of being on the juice? Remember when the mark of a good season by a running back was 1000 yards? Now they are a dime a dozen, the bar has been raised to prolly 1500+ yds now right? Any input?
0
Comments
NBA all star weekend, it's NFL players getting in trouble, but yet the NBA is the one vilified. Nobody cares about steroids in the NFL because the media *never* brings it up. But how often is it mentioned in regards to MLB?
Don't forget about the NBA too! Both the NFL and NBA are loaded with users of performance enhancers. The NFL players have been doing it since those drugs came out.
<< <i>Do any of you guys give a rats a$$ if The NFL is full of steroids?
I know the majority of posters hate the steroid's in baseball but what about football? I never hear many arguments about todays players being accused of being on the juice? Remember when the mark of a good season by a running back was 1000 yards? Now they are a dime a dozen, the bar has been raised to prolly 1500+ yds now right? Any input? >>
Sure, players use them in every sport. The difference in perception is, in my personal opinion, because there haven't been many recent positive tests for NFL superstar players. The only one I remember in recent memory is Merriman, and he's still not one of the leagues biggest names. If Favre, Tomlinson, Manning or Brady tested positive, it would be news everywhere and then the steroid questions about the NFL would come to the forefront again. Look at one of the biggest stories concerning steroids in recent history in the NFL. In 2004, 3 Panthers were accused of getting prescriptions for steroids from a doctor right up until the Super Bowl. The players were the team punter, Todd Sauerbrun & offensive linemen Todd Steussie & Jeff Mitchell. Nobody really cared because it wasn't Brady, Steve Smith or Janet Jacksons boob that tested positive.
In baseball, it's only became the news it has because of a records being challenged or broken. If the players in question were marginal caliber guys that didn't really accomplish anything of note in the history books, we wouldn't give two schyts about it. But two of the biggest records in baseball were, or are about to be broken (season and career HR marks), so everybody feels it's irreparably tainted the game. Thus, all of the extra media coverage. If tomorrow someone uncovered proof that Favre was a steroid user, people would also be up in arms because he has broken or is in like to break records that may take a long time to challenge again, if they ever are.
It all comes down to perception. MLB has its steroid issues discussed over and over and over by the media, whereas the problem never gets mentioned by the folks covering the NFL.
<< <i>Merriman was a pro bowler, and one of the league's best players...yet his 4 game suspension was hardly even mentioned in the media. How about those Panthers that were busted by authorities? The same panthers who had just been in the super bowl? Where's the media outcry over them? Yet because there's speculation about McGwire, and because he didn't want to testify in congress, MLB supposedly has a problem?
It all comes down to perception. MLB has its steroid issues discussed over and over and over by the media, whereas the problem never gets mentioned by the folks covering the NFL. >>
Yes, Merriman is one of the leagues best players... but not one of its most popular outside of SD. He's certainly not mentioned in the same breath (concerning popularity) with Manning, Favre, Tomlinson, etc... Those guys are the equivalent in stature that Bonds, McGwire & Sosa are/were in baseball. I'm just saying most don't care unless it's one of the sports biggest names. And further, Merriman was suspended so it's not as if he didn't get punished. It would have remained a story for a long time if he went unpunished. And again, nobody cared about the guys in the SB because they weren't the big name players involved in the game. If the only baseball players accused of taking steroids were back-up catchers, journeymen fielders and marginal setup pitchers, nobody would even be reading the newspaper stories and there would be no outcry for investigations.
Sincerely,
The Bucs D.
JS
i mean if tony romo throws 40 tds next year. and cowboys lose first round playoffs.. it wouldnt be a big deal to fans. it will be lets regroup for next year etc..
now if jose reyes steals 135 bases and mets dont even make playoffs. that number would stick in everyones head.
football and baseball are really different IMO. baseball is all about numbers. football really isnt. football is about getting together with friends family partying watching the game etc..
baseball has so many games. you can sit and watch at home byu yourself and just add the numbers up.. of what your favorite players are doing.
dont get me wrong though watching the mets win means everything to me. but i am always looking at the individual numbers of the players also.
with football its just watching the game and hoping the cowboys kill the eagles
JS
do not think so. but im not 100% sure
<< <i>I think one thing that causes the uproar is Baseball is the God-like status that baseball fans put on older players. If you ask people on these boards who is the top 10 baseball players of all time, most people's lists would be all dead guys. If you ask the same for Football or Basketball, the lists would be mostly living people. Baseball fans are stuck with the notion that the best players ever were from years ago (I guess for nostalgia reasons), so it really bothers them when somebody challenges their records. They like to find an excuse why Babe Ruth is better than Barry Bonds. And 20 years from now, they'll be looking for excuses why Babe Ruth is better than any player in 2025. It will go on forever. >>
That is pretty insightful, and I would have to agree with that.
Kulhman, good points as well, and I especially agree with the fact that fans tend to 'expect' it from football players. Lyle Alzado is a case in point! The guy was loved by a lot of fans! He was basically a fan favorite. Not a single person thought about putting astericks by his sack totals! Why? Well you basically said it already in your post.
Maybe they have other players piss in the cup for them as featured on ESPN's award-winning series Playmakers.
Guess that's cause ya need balls to play hockey.
After giving it some thought I see there is a huge difference when it comes to the sacred HR record. I guess it holds more water than records obtained in other sports.
Today's athletes are EXTREMELY superior to yesterday's athletes. Between medical advances to strength training, modern day athletes are machines compared to the fat slobs of the old days. The only thing I might give to older players is work ethic. But, you can't say that players who've never lifted a weight in their life can compare guys today benching 400 lbs out of high school.
Also, if anyone can dig up that thread a couple years ago about peoples top 10 of all time, IIRC there wasn't much Griffey, Arod, Pujols talk. It was all the same dead players being repeated by everybody.
You are incorrect. None of the statistical measures...even the very best ones...account for the reasons why it was easier to outdistance peers in certain eras. They are alll very top heavy with PRe WAr players.
Mays ain't dead, and we aren't talking about the 50's/60's era.
And actually, the current era we are in has made it easier for both hitters AND pitchers to outdistance peers. They too will end up with outlandish results.
Look at OPS+ career totals. This is measured vs. peers and is weighted to league average.
13 of the top 19 of all time played before the War!
25 of the top 43 of all time played before the War!
It is the same for Batter Runs....
13 of the top 19 of all time played before the War!
24 of the top 43 of all time played before the War!
HOW ABOUT PITCHING?
Pitcher Runs(like Batter Runs)
9 of the top 10 of all time played before the war!!
ERA+
10 of the top 14 of all time played before the war!!
So are we to believe that mothers had something in thier breast milk at the turn of the century to produce such an outlandish proportion of the all time best players in that era? Especially considering that there were millions less viable baseball candidates available each year in those times, compared to later in the century?
And acutully, the 70's/80's did produce stars comparable(and even more so), they just aren't lucky enough to have played in an era where it was as easy to outdistanc peers.
Remember, it is MUCH harder to outdistance peers when there are more avaialble that are as good as you! This is what Schmidt had to contend with. Had Mike Schmidt played in the Plymouth league in 1625, he would have Ruth God like status because it would be so easy to distance his peers. He wouldn't be any better player than what he was in 1980, it is just the results that would make him look different.
Like Wabbit said, fans will argue to their death against this, because they treat those guys wtih God like status. They will look logic in the face and totally disregard it for nostalgic purposes.
Did you know that, the TOP 19 BATTING AVERAGE OF ALL TIME ARE ALL FROM PLAYERS WHO PLAYED BEFORE THE WAR?
15 of the top 18 all time OB% are from before the war?
That the top 24 all time slugging percentages are from either before the war, or from the current live ball era?
This is the type of information that causes people to always rate the best players ever unproportinately higher from the pre war era.
THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN
The top 83 ERA's of all time come from pre war players! The top 83!!
Now Baseball, based on your logic that the 60's-early 90's didn't produce a single all time great on par with inflated pre war players, then you must also agree that the moms of the late 1800's knew better than anybody on how to produce starting pitchers....because they dominate the all time ERA lists.
Based on your, "the stats can't be refuted" in regard to Ruth, then neither can all these..and those moms MUST have known better than the moms of 1950. Even though there were literally MILLIONS more players born in the late 50's than the 1880's, not a sinlge 1950's born player cracks the list. Quite odd.
its is well known that breast feeding is advantageous, and this may be another example of how breastfeeding is superior to artificial milk..
skinpinch..i have an idea how ypu can rate homerun hitters from past and present and compare them......
its called HR as a percentage of total league HR......
by using this, you can see that Ruth was SO MUCH MORE dominant then Barroid ever was.....
Ruth hit more HR than many teams....baroid never did this....
this would give you an idea how dominant a slugger was relative to the rest of the league.....this evens the stat playing field and enables you to compare generations...
Ruth's outhomering every team a direct product of circumstances that were inherent during that time...circumstances that no other player has or ever will enjoy again. No need to elaborate, as I emplore you to read the entire thread about that.
<< <i>
this would give you an idea how dominant a slugger was relative to the rest of the league.....this evens the stat playing field and enables you to compare generations... >>
I don't think it comes close to comparing sluggers across leagues...taking one stat (home runs) and comparing it to the rest of the league? You are forgetting to factor out the sizes of ballparks, the dillution of pitching, etc. etc.
<< <i>by using this, you can see that Ruth was SO MUCH MORE dominant then Barroid ever was.....
Ruth hit more HR than many teams....baroid never did this.... >>
I think this just means that Ruth was pretty good and the rest of the league sucked something aweful.
<< <i>
<< <i>
this would give you an idea how dominant a slugger was relative to the rest of the league.....this evens the stat playing field and enables you to compare generations... >>
I don't think it comes close to comparing sluggers across leagues...taking one stat (home runs) and comparing it to the rest of the league? You are forgetting to factor out the sizes of ballparks, the dillution of pitching, etc. etc. >>
ya but for any given year, all things are the same....in 2006 for instance, everyone played against the same watered down pitching and hit in the same bandbox size stadiums....therefore you are comparing one player with how he fared against the rest of the league..
...player x hit 50 HR's and and there were 5000 HR's hit that year (just using round numbers)...player X had a HR% of 1.00%....
ruth hit 50 HR and there were 500 HR's hit that year, his HR% that year would be 10.0%....
so it doesnt matter the size of the ballpark or the watered down pitching, because EVERYONE dealt with the same variables that year...
you now can compare HR% from generation to generation and see who dominated their era best!
Its easy to look at one's home runs compared to the rest of the league - the real work begins when you dig deeper.
Not in any order..
1-Mays
2-Ted Williams
3-Dimmagio
4-Ruth
5-Gehrig
6-Mantle
7-Snider
8-Aaron
9-Arod
10-Bonds
Baseball, there are usually two camps on dealing with old guys. Camp 1 treats them as Gods. Camp 2 treats them as mere peasants and think they stink compared to the modern player. Neither camp is correct.
I'm more concerened about the measurements that still can't account for the reasons why certain eras have an inordinate amount of players at the top...jsut look at the lsits I provided.
I put in the work, so I started a new thread with a more direct discussion.
<< <i>perkdog,
I don't normally quibble with people's lists because it is just an opinion but why do you have Snider so high? Not that my list would look like that but the rest of your list looks pretty nice. I'll try to overlook the fact that you have a Red Sox player over any all Yankees.
Well first off I will say my list is really in no particular order (but I am partial to Williams
Guess that's cause ya need balls to play hockey.
<< <i>Gary Player is saying they are being used by pro golfers, imagine what would happen if tiger popped positive! >>
Then I hope EVERYONE that bashes Bonds will say that Tigers records do not count!