I am afraid the Mitchell report has created a couple of problems...
Hoopster
Posts: 1,169
in Sports Talk
Based on most of the fan reaction I have heard, it seems that the Mitchell report has created two incorrect assumptions...
1) Many fans seem to think that if a player was not on this last, that then means they did not take any performance enhancers.
It is almost as if MLB is happy about this perception, because it is making it seem like the problem isn't as bad as thought, and that their program is working. Could this possibly be one of the motives for the way this report was done??
2) Fans seem to think that the primary reason for the surge of performance is due to steroids, AND that any time a player has a one year blip of excellence, that steroids is the most likely culprit.
1994 represented the beginning of the 'live ball' era. This is when the offense really took off, and it has not stopped since then. Compared to just two years earlier, MLB was a much different environment. 1993 was sort of a midway point between the two eras.
Unless steroids were passed out to every MLB player, then steroids can only account for a small portion of the surge in offense, or individual player dominance. I am not going to go into detail of the other reasons, like overall talent available compared to other eras, or all the other ones that we all know...I have done that numerous times in the past. This is the reasoning that explains why both hitters AND pitchers have dominated like no other era, and steroids aren't even in that equation.
With such a league wide increase in offense in such a short span, steroids look like to be a very small part of the equation.
The one year blip. I constantly hear about Brady Anderson's one year blip. This is one of the most puzzling things that fans say. They completely attribute his one year home run outburst to steroid use. But then what happened the next season? Wasn't he just as muscular? Why would he stop taking steroids if they worked so well? If he didn't stop taking them, then why did his numbers revert back to normal the following year? If he reverted back to normal the following year, then was he a 50 home run guy simply because of steroids?
While steroids may have contributed to his 50 home runs, it does not mean that was the sole reason for his output, as the next year showed that the most powerful force in baseball started to work? What is that? It is that given enough time, the players performance will regress closer to his mean. In other words, it evened back out. Baseball history is filled with guys who have outbursts like that, only to see them return to their expected norm the following season.
It isn't correct to automatically assume that steroids are the main reason for a one year outburst, because the other powerful force is usally the main culprit.
1) Many fans seem to think that if a player was not on this last, that then means they did not take any performance enhancers.
It is almost as if MLB is happy about this perception, because it is making it seem like the problem isn't as bad as thought, and that their program is working. Could this possibly be one of the motives for the way this report was done??
2) Fans seem to think that the primary reason for the surge of performance is due to steroids, AND that any time a player has a one year blip of excellence, that steroids is the most likely culprit.
1994 represented the beginning of the 'live ball' era. This is when the offense really took off, and it has not stopped since then. Compared to just two years earlier, MLB was a much different environment. 1993 was sort of a midway point between the two eras.
Unless steroids were passed out to every MLB player, then steroids can only account for a small portion of the surge in offense, or individual player dominance. I am not going to go into detail of the other reasons, like overall talent available compared to other eras, or all the other ones that we all know...I have done that numerous times in the past. This is the reasoning that explains why both hitters AND pitchers have dominated like no other era, and steroids aren't even in that equation.
With such a league wide increase in offense in such a short span, steroids look like to be a very small part of the equation.
The one year blip. I constantly hear about Brady Anderson's one year blip. This is one of the most puzzling things that fans say. They completely attribute his one year home run outburst to steroid use. But then what happened the next season? Wasn't he just as muscular? Why would he stop taking steroids if they worked so well? If he didn't stop taking them, then why did his numbers revert back to normal the following year? If he reverted back to normal the following year, then was he a 50 home run guy simply because of steroids?
While steroids may have contributed to his 50 home runs, it does not mean that was the sole reason for his output, as the next year showed that the most powerful force in baseball started to work? What is that? It is that given enough time, the players performance will regress closer to his mean. In other words, it evened back out. Baseball history is filled with guys who have outbursts like that, only to see them return to their expected norm the following season.
It isn't correct to automatically assume that steroids are the main reason for a one year outburst, because the other powerful force is usally the main culprit.
0
Comments
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>Based on most of the fan reaction I have heard, it seems that the Mitchell report has created two incorrect assumptions...
1) Many fans seem to think that if a player was not on this last, that then means they did not take any performance enhancers. >>
I got this far before i had to jump in. Where have you heard anyone that thinks this? I have yet to hear 1 knowledgeable fan say that a player is clean because he was not on the list. True, people are happy when the favorite player was not on the list, but as has been said numerous times before, it is better to not be listed than to be listed, no?
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>Could this possibly be one of the motives for the way this report was done?? >>
No
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on most of the fan reaction I have heard, it seems that the Mitchell report has created two incorrect assumptions...
1) Many fans seem to think that if a player was not on this last, that then means they did not take any performance enhancers. >>
I got this far before i had to jump in. Where have you heard anyone that thinks this? I have yet to hear 1 knowledgeable fan say that a player is clean because he was not on the list. True, people are happy when the favorite player was not on the list, but as has been said numerous times before, it is better to not be listed than to be listed, no? >>
So you're saying you didn't see a thread on this very board extolling the virtues of Ken Griffey Jr. in light of his not being named in the report?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Based on most of the fan reaction I have heard, it seems that the Mitchell report has created two incorrect assumptions...
1) Many fans seem to think that if a player was not on this last, that then means they did not take any performance enhancers. >>
I got this far before i had to jump in. Where have you heard anyone that thinks this? I have yet to hear 1 knowledgeable fan say that a player is clean because he was not on the list. True, people are happy when the favorite player was not on the list, but as has been said numerous times before, it is better to not be listed than to be listed, no? >>
So you're saying you didn't see a thread on this very board extolling the virtues of Ken Griffey Jr. in light of his not being named in the report? >>
People thought he was clean before the Mitchell Report, not sure many were sweating if he would be on the report or not. People like the Giles Bros, Gonzo, shawn greene, etc, were the one that the mitchel report did not "clear" of wrong doing.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>There are plenty of people saying that such and such suspected player is and has been clean because they weren't named. >>
Besides the griffey list, who wasnt suspected publically beforehand, where are all of these plenty of people? Find me "plenty" of examples of people who were susupected of steroid use, were not on the list, and now people think they are clean. Ready, go!
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>
The one year blip. I constantly hear about Brady Anderson's one year blip. This is one of the most puzzling things that fans say. They completely attribute his one year home run outburst to steroid use. But then what happened the next season? Wasn't he just as muscular? Why would he stop taking steroids if they worked so well? If he didn't stop taking them, then why did his numbers revert back to normal the following year? If he reverted back to normal the following year, then was he a 50 home run guy simply because of steroids?
While steroids may have contributed to his 50 home runs, it does not mean that was the sole reason for his output, as the next year showed that the most powerful force in baseball started to work? What is that? It is that given enough time, the players performance will regress closer to his mean. In other words, it evened back out. Baseball history is filled with guys who have outbursts like that, only to see them return to their expected norm the following season.
It isn't correct to automatically assume that steroids are the main reason for a one year outburst, because the other powerful force is usally the main culprit. >>
But then what happened the next season? He sucked.
Wasn't he just as muscular? I doubt it.
Why would he stop taking steroids if they worked so well? Adverse side effects, fear of getting caught, attack of conscience . . .
If he reverted back to normal the following year, then was he a 50 home run guy simply because of steroids? Appears likely to me.
yeah, they took a vow of abstinence in their big years....
the reason people have big years and then come back to earth is simple.....
after taking steroids and mass builders, they retain the size for sometime even after stopping , especailly when working out hard.....
what they lose is that extra burst, that extra hand-eye speed and hand-eye coordination, that extra blast of power.......they may look similar but deep inside the muscles and nerves its different.....
Thus the One Year Wonders......
The most famous one year blip should actually be Roger Maris....who went from 39 to 61 (a 150% increase!) and hit more than 30 home runs just once more. Was Maris juicing? Or is it possibly the same random binge hitting that sometimes happens?
Baseball history is littered with guys like Anderson who had huge power surges one year then never repeated them.
<< <i>People want to wildly speculate that steroids/HGH were the cause of Brady Anderson's one year blip.
The most famous one year blip should actually be Roger Maris....who went from 39 to 61 (a 150% increase!) and hit more than 30 home runs just once more. Was Maris juicing? Or is it possibly the same random binge hitting that sometimes happens?
Baseball history is littered with guys like Anderson who had huge power surges one year then never repeated them. >>
ok first, it isnt a 150% increase. But most of all, how are you at all defending Brady when your stance on the mitchell report is that everyone is guilty? Hmmmmmmmm, seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguement. Get a life.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/