Gentleman: A Theoretical Analysis Regarding Why Steroids Matter More in Baseball than in Football
Many semi-savvy sports pundits have been talking for the last several days about why football fans don
Baseball/Football & Steroids: What do you think??
Moderator: TyCobb
Baseball/Football & Steroids: What do you think??
-
LarryHarris
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,775
- And1: 133
- Joined: Sep 13, 2007
- Location: Milwaukee, WI
-
Baseball/Football & Steroids: What do you think??
"It is time." -Kevin Greene to Clay Matthews at Super Bowl XLV
"I ain't got time for jokers to be bangin' on the drum." -Gary Ellerson
"I ain't got time for jokers to be bangin' on the drum." -Gary Ellerson
-
TyCobb
- Forum Mod - Lakers
- Posts: 38,249
- And1: 9,955
- Joined: Apr 17, 2005
- Location: Pitcher's Mound
-
Meh...
It's the same in both sports.
Going by the 50% hypothetical situation for both sports, it's always at least 50% of the participants in the football play using them since you said it's more of a team than individual. But baseball...on the other hand, can have half the team on steroids, but only maybe 1 out of the 4 guys in the play are actually on steroids. That's 25%. Granted you can have a play in baseball with 100%, but you can also have 0%. You can't say that for football.
It's the same in both sports.
Going by the 50% hypothetical situation for both sports, it's always at least 50% of the participants in the football play using them since you said it's more of a team than individual. But baseball...on the other hand, can have half the team on steroids, but only maybe 1 out of the 4 guys in the play are actually on steroids. That's 25%. Granted you can have a play in baseball with 100%, but you can also have 0%. You can't say that for football.
Read more, learn more, change your posts.
-
Basketball Jesus
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 31,180
- And1: 7
- Joined: Sep 04, 2003
- Location: P-nuts + hair doos
That is definitely an interesting opinion. I don
Manocad wrote:The universe is the age it is. We can all agree it's 13 billion years old, and nothing changes. We can all agree it's 6000 years old, and nothing changes. We can all disagree on how old it is, and nothing changes. Some people really need a hobby.
-
BlackMamba
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 16,297
- And1: 81
- Joined: Jun 20, 2004
- Location: Cd. de M
-
obviously i don't agree to the use of any enhancing drugs in any sport.
but i kind of agree with the point that for football you might rellly need them to get by, while in baseball you don't.
but the recent findings prove that most of the respected players have been linked to that, so, what does that make you think. there are hundreds more that do go their way in a natural style and fight day in day out to earn a spot and someone juiced up gets in and gets the opportunity.
i again post, i wonder what will happen to all this players and what will become of the future and how will baseball look like with or without all this characters.
but i kind of agree with the point that for football you might rellly need them to get by, while in baseball you don't.
but the recent findings prove that most of the respected players have been linked to that, so, what does that make you think. there are hundreds more that do go their way in a natural style and fight day in day out to earn a spot and someone juiced up gets in and gets the opportunity.
i again post, i wonder what will happen to all this players and what will become of the future and how will baseball look like with or without all this characters.
-
Chach
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 12,330
- And1: 2
- Joined: Jan 23, 2003
I disagree with your statistical outlook because it is incomplete. If you could come up with a wider range of data, maybe I might buy it but picking two random common plays doesn't fly for me. Say you have one out and runners on first and third. Ball is hit to the gap in LF and CF. In that play, the LF, CF, 3rd, SS, 2nd, pitcher, and catcher all can play a role in the play. If the ball drops then the runner on third is going to take off for home with either the shortstop or 3rd basemen fielding the cut off home. The ball could go to second to try to get a force. If the ball is caught, the man on third may still try to tag up. In that play, in either variation, you have 7 or the nine batters involved in that play. There are plenty of other plays in football where less than every player on the field plays a role in the play so I really don't buy the percentage theory.
I buy BBJ's historical reverence theory more. If Barry Bonds hits more HRs and is a better player than Ruth, then so bit. But if Bonds becomes a better player than Ruth through underhanded means, like steroids, his accomplishments are tarnished. Roger Maris had an asterisk next to his name because he played in half a dozen more games than Ruth. That had nothing to due with steroids or cheating but was driven entirely by the love and respect for the past.
The brutality of football also plays a role. There is a reason that football is only played once a week. Most guys can barely walk the day after a game and it would be nearly impossible to play multiple games a week. Steroids don't automatically make you stronger or faster. They help your body recover from extreme stress, normally in a gym but sometimes on the field of play as well. If you look at the Mitchell report, a lot of the guys listed on that took PED to recover from injuries/age. Clemens took them after he left Boston and was thought to be in the twilight of his career. Pettitte only took them when he was on the DL and tried to recover faster. Mo Vaughn took them in order to recover faster from an ankle injury. Rick Ankiel was making the switch from pitcher to OF and he suffered an injury (I believe in his elbow) and needed help recovering. Gagne had some durability issues in the minors and needed the recovery edge to continue to play and so on and so forth. Some guys take roids to get a legit competitive advantage and to be the biggest, strongest guy in the room. But many, in both sports, take them to simply play and recover from the stress the sport puts on their body. I don't know if it's unconscious but when you hear about football players taking them and you recognize the brutality of the sport, I think people are more accepting of it because of the physical sacrifice they put their bodies through. Wrestling is the same way, those guys put their bodies through hell in order to perform regularly. Baseball, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be viewed in the same light even though they play everyday and have the longest schedule of all major sports. When there was a big bru-ha-ha over PED in baseball, the main theme was steroids and HGH but "greenies" always seemed to be a throw in. Those were never the main focus of the outrage because, maybe like steroids in football, the fans unconsciously recognize the rigors a full season takes on a player and if they need a little pick me up in August, then the fans are willing to ignore it. I think the history and the nature of the game/season has more to do with fan outrage than the statistics of how much the game is effected by steroids per play. mahalo
~Chach~
I buy BBJ's historical reverence theory more. If Barry Bonds hits more HRs and is a better player than Ruth, then so bit. But if Bonds becomes a better player than Ruth through underhanded means, like steroids, his accomplishments are tarnished. Roger Maris had an asterisk next to his name because he played in half a dozen more games than Ruth. That had nothing to due with steroids or cheating but was driven entirely by the love and respect for the past.
The brutality of football also plays a role. There is a reason that football is only played once a week. Most guys can barely walk the day after a game and it would be nearly impossible to play multiple games a week. Steroids don't automatically make you stronger or faster. They help your body recover from extreme stress, normally in a gym but sometimes on the field of play as well. If you look at the Mitchell report, a lot of the guys listed on that took PED to recover from injuries/age. Clemens took them after he left Boston and was thought to be in the twilight of his career. Pettitte only took them when he was on the DL and tried to recover faster. Mo Vaughn took them in order to recover faster from an ankle injury. Rick Ankiel was making the switch from pitcher to OF and he suffered an injury (I believe in his elbow) and needed help recovering. Gagne had some durability issues in the minors and needed the recovery edge to continue to play and so on and so forth. Some guys take roids to get a legit competitive advantage and to be the biggest, strongest guy in the room. But many, in both sports, take them to simply play and recover from the stress the sport puts on their body. I don't know if it's unconscious but when you hear about football players taking them and you recognize the brutality of the sport, I think people are more accepting of it because of the physical sacrifice they put their bodies through. Wrestling is the same way, those guys put their bodies through hell in order to perform regularly. Baseball, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be viewed in the same light even though they play everyday and have the longest schedule of all major sports. When there was a big bru-ha-ha over PED in baseball, the main theme was steroids and HGH but "greenies" always seemed to be a throw in. Those were never the main focus of the outrage because, maybe like steroids in football, the fans unconsciously recognize the rigors a full season takes on a player and if they need a little pick me up in August, then the fans are willing to ignore it. I think the history and the nature of the game/season has more to do with fan outrage than the statistics of how much the game is effected by steroids per play. mahalo
~Chach~
Return to The General MLB Board