This contract will likely pay dividends in the first 3-4 years, then be a drain for the latter 6-7.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
Teixera, Howard, and Gonzalez would make more per year than the contract the Cardinals offered Pujols I belive. Either way The Angels gave him 60 mil more than the Cardinals making him the highest paid at his position deservedly and the second highest paid in the game next to a-rod. The Cards just did not come close to the Angels offer. I don’t blame Pujols for leaving.[/quote]
I don’t blame him either, but I don’t consider the Cards offer unacceptable. Cards were better off passing rather than matching the Angels obscene offer.
There is little chance he will live up to 9years/200m let alone what the Angels gave him - 10 years/254m.
He’ll be 32 in January and we’ve already seen regression in his game over the last 2 years.[/quote]
Oh I agree that the Cardinals may be better off passing. That’s a lot of money for one guy and weve seen how contracts like that can cripple teams other than the Red Sox and Yankees. It was just unacceptable to Ablert because it was below market value and when the best player in the game accepts less than market value it affects the pay of every player on the game.
Braun tested positive for elevated testosterone levels. And they said that a subsequant test revealed that it was synthetic testosterone.
lets see how this plays out.
My bet is that he has a new excuse.
Braun’s fucked
50 game suspension, brewers are fucked.
Really interesting site discussing steroid use and it’s effect on performance in baseball.
From the site:
"Steroids have a markedly greater effect on upper-body strength than on lower-body strength.
Batting is almost exclusively powered by lower-body strength.
Beefcake doesn’t drive long balls."
edit:
I’ve been skimming through the site.
"PEDs can affect, if anything, musculature, which in baseball translates to power. They do not, and cannot, do anything to improve hand-eye coordination, vision, ball judgement, timing, or any of the factors that go into hitting except actual power, the bat speed that determines the ball velocity and thus its travel distance.
Examinations of the actual records of major-league baseball for over a century, with an especial focus on the last 25 or so years, those now being attributed to a “steroids era”, show clearly and conclusively–by a number of independent analyses by a number of independent analysts each using a different methodology–that there simply is not any power boost needing explaining: PEDs are an “answer” lacking a pertinent question. This fact has been disguised by the analytically faulty method of counting power events instead of determining their rate of occurrence in hitting, and further confounded by changes in the baseball, notably the juicing whose effects were felt in 1994 and possibly back in 1993, when the change occurred.
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[quote]therajraj wrote:
From the site:
"Steroids have a markedly greater effect on upper-body strength than on lower-body strength.
Batting is almost exclusively powered by lower-body strength.
Beefcake doesn’t drive long balls."
edit:
I’ve been skimming through the site.[/quote]
That statement begs the question of whether stregth is actually the most important thing to hit homers.
It’s not, imo.
The value steroids have for a man playing 162 games in ~185 days is the ability to recover.
There’s not a single person in the majors that cant hit a homer run because he isnt strong enough. But there is clearly a difference on how fresh you feel in june compared to how fresh you feel in september. Im talking hand muscle, wrist muscle, obliques, hips, glutes, calves. All the important hitting muscles.
Some guys hit more homers simply because theyve increased their bat speed through increased hand/wrist/hip explosiveness. Some guys hit more homers simply becuase they arent as tired in the second half of the season as they would be sans drugs.
Then theres the guys that dont hit homers a great rate but stay fresh every day, thus allowing more top quality at bats.
For a major league baseball player, the effect steroids have on recovery is so much more important than the effect on strength.
I know you wont disagree with that but people get hung up on the whole ‘steroids make you huge and strong’. They CAN do that. They can also do a lot of other important things.
And that study or whatever is referring to the fact that men, on average, have more androgen receptors in their shoulder girdle than anywhere else. But there are certainly some men that have a high concentration of androgen receptors in their lower bodies. Many bodybuilders prove this, Fankhouser, Platz, Warren. But even still, the conclusion that since most men will see better gains in the upper body compared to the lower body is irrelevant. Because when training properly, sport specifically, the improvements in the lower body will be significant as well.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
This is ignorant for the reason I just stated. Strength =/= home runs. The person saying that sounds like hes never played baseball while natural and while using drugs.
But i havent read even half of that site yet. Ill get around to it when I get a chance. Just that the above statement is almost surely false. The science may be sound, but the conclusion may be based on a misterpretation of results
[quote]therajraj wrote:
"PEDs can affect, if anything, musculature, which in baseball translates to power. They do not, and cannot, do anything to improve hand-eye coordination, vision, ball judgement, timing, or any of the factors that go into hitting except actual power, the bat speed that determines the ball velocity and thus its travel distance.
Examinations of the actual records of major-league baseball for over a century, with an especial focus on the last 25 or so years, those now being attributed to a “steroids era”, show clearly and conclusively–by a number of independent analyses by a number of independent analysts each using a different methodology–that there simply is not any power boost needing explaining: PEDs are an “answer” lacking a pertinent question. This fact has been disguised by the analytically faulty method of counting power events instead of determining their rate of occurrence in hitting, and further confounded by changes in the baseball, notably the juicing whose effects were felt in 1994 and possibly back in 1993, when the change occurred.
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
HGH use has been definitively proven to improve eyesight. THAT makes all the difference in the world. Steroids make you stronger, period. They make you stronger in your upper body and your lower body, and any discrepancy between the two is immaterial. Hand/wrist/forearm strength is easily as important as leg strength when it comes to hitting. Strong hands/forearms equals bat speed, and bat speed equals home runs. In fact, I would argue that the increased upper body strength they add is even more important to marginal hitters than lower body strength; a marginal hitter is such for many reasons, not the least of which is their timing. They’re late on the fastball and out in front of the off-speed pitch more often than great hitters. With strong hands/forearms, they can still hit the ball out of the park when they’re a little off-balance and their lower body is largely removed from the swing.
Anyone who would say that getting stronger doesn’t increase your ability to hit home runs is beyond ignorant. If there is ONE thing you should have learned from this site by now it’s that a stronger athlete, all other things being equal, is the superior athlete. Baseball is not the exception to the rule and only someone who has never played baseball and doesn’t lift weights would not understand this.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
This is ignorant for the reason I just stated. Strength =/= home runs. The person saying that sounds like hes never played baseball while natural and while using drugs.
But i havent read even half of that site yet. Ill get around to it when I get a chance. Just that the above statement is almost surely false. The science may be sound, but the conclusion may be based on a misterpretation of results [/quote]
I agree that quote above is nonsense. Why would players risk their reputation and a possible suspension on something that doesn’t work? You don’t need to have any personal experience with them to see the facts-two poeple before 1998 ever hit 60 hr in a season, three have after '98 two of which did it multiple times. All three steroid users. How does that not affect the performance records of major league baseball?
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
This is ignorant for the reason I just stated. Strength =/= home runs. The person saying that sounds like hes never played baseball while natural and while using drugs.
But i havent read even half of that site yet. Ill get around to it when I get a chance. Just that the above statement is almost surely false. The science may be sound, but the conclusion may be based on a misterpretation of results [/quote]
I agree that quote above is nonsense. Why would players risk their reputation and a possible suspension on something that doesn’t work? You don’t need to have any personal experience with them to see the facts-two poeple before 1998 ever hit 60 hr in a season, three have after '98 two of which did it multiple times. All three steroid users. How does that not affect the performance records of major league baseball?
[/quote]
Dimensions of the ball parks.
Height of the pitchers mound
No blacks/latinos in the league until 1947
Travel schedule → fatigue
There are other things at play beside PEDs that affect record breaking. But it is silly to think that PEDs played no role. True.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
"PEDs can affect, if anything, musculature, which in baseball translates to power. They do not, and cannot, do anything to improve hand-eye coordination, vision, ball judgement, timing, or any of the factors that go into hitting except actual power, the bat speed that determines the ball velocity and thus its travel distance.
Examinations of the actual records of major-league baseball for over a century, with an especial focus on the last 25 or so years, those now being attributed to a “steroids era”, show clearly and conclusively–by a number of independent analyses by a number of independent analysts each using a different methodology–that there simply is not any power boost needing explaining: PEDs are an “answer” lacking a pertinent question. This fact has been disguised by the analytically faulty method of counting power events instead of determining their rate of occurrence in hitting, and further confounded by changes in the baseball, notably the juicing whose effects were felt in 1994 and possibly back in 1993, when the change occurred.
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
HGH use has been definitively proven to improve eyesight. THAT makes all the difference in the world. Steroids make you stronger, period. They make you stronger in your upper body and your lower body, and any discrepancy between the two is immaterial. Hand/wrist/forearm strength is easily as important as leg strength when it comes to hitting. Strong hands/forearms equals bat speed, and bat speed equals home runs. In fact, I would argue that the increased upper body strength they add is even more important to marginal hitters than lower body strength; a marginal hitter is such for many reasons, not the least of which is their timing. They’re late on the fastball and out in front of the off-speed pitch more often than great hitters. With strong hands/forearms, they can still hit the ball out of the park when they’re a little off-balance and their lower body is largely removed from the swing.
Anyone who would say that getting stronger doesn’t increase your ability to hit home runs is beyond ignorant. If there is ONE thing you should have learned from this site by now it’s that a stronger athlete, all other things being equal, is the superior athlete. Baseball is not the exception to the rule and only someone who has never played baseball and doesn’t lift weights would not understand this.[/quote]
FTR, I just presented it for discussion and didn’t actually say I agreed/disagreed with what I quoted.
Out of curiousity, have you used steroids while playing baseball vs not? Do you have firsthand knowledge that HGH improves eyesight?
If not, why do you believe it?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
"PEDs can affect, if anything, musculature, which in baseball translates to power. They do not, and cannot, do anything to improve hand-eye coordination, vision, ball judgement, timing, or any of the factors that go into hitting except actual power, the bat speed that determines the ball velocity and thus its travel distance.
Examinations of the actual records of major-league baseball for over a century, with an especial focus on the last 25 or so years, those now being attributed to a “steroids era”, show clearly and conclusively–by a number of independent analyses by a number of independent analysts each using a different methodology–that there simply is not any power boost needing explaining: PEDs are an “answer” lacking a pertinent question. This fact has been disguised by the analytically faulty method of counting power events instead of determining their rate of occurrence in hitting, and further confounded by changes in the baseball, notably the juicing whose effects were felt in 1994 and possibly back in 1993, when the change occurred.
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
HGH use has been definitively proven to improve eyesight. THAT makes all the difference in the world. Steroids make you stronger, period. They make you stronger in your upper body and your lower body, and any discrepancy between the two is immaterial. Hand/wrist/forearm strength is easily as important as leg strength when it comes to hitting. Strong hands/forearms equals bat speed, and bat speed equals home runs. In fact, I would argue that the increased upper body strength they add is even more important to marginal hitters than lower body strength; a marginal hitter is such for many reasons, not the least of which is their timing. They’re late on the fastball and out in front of the off-speed pitch more often than great hitters. With strong hands/forearms, they can still hit the ball out of the park when they’re a little off-balance and their lower body is largely removed from the swing.
Anyone who would say that getting stronger doesn’t increase your ability to hit home runs is beyond ignorant. If there is ONE thing you should have learned from this site by now it’s that a stronger athlete, all other things being equal, is the superior athlete. Baseball is not the exception to the rule and only someone who has never played baseball and doesn’t lift weights would not understand this.[/quote]
I agree strength matters, all else equal, but considering that the huge majority of players are not power hitters I think the effect on recovery has a bigger overall impact.
I know the discussion is on record breaking but steroids had a huge effect on the game aside from just hitting homers.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Do you have firsthand knowledge that HGH improves eyesight?
If not, why do you believe it?
[/quote]
Because it’s a scientific fact. There have been many studies done on this.
Typically only a dose of 1-2 units of GH per day is needed to see improvements in skin hair and nail quality, eye sight, and joint health. Higher doses needed to change body composition. Even higher doses along side steroids needed to elicit muscle growth. (gh is not a steroid; I usually use PEDs and steroids interchangeably out of laziness)
edit
age matters though. a young person will see virtually no improvement. whereas a deteriorating older person will see significant improvements. there isnt a single age to know when gh will help in those regards
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
This is ignorant for the reason I just stated. Strength =/= home runs. The person saying that sounds like hes never played baseball while natural and while using drugs.
But i havent read even half of that site yet. Ill get around to it when I get a chance. Just that the above statement is almost surely false. The science may be sound, but the conclusion may be based on a misterpretation of results [/quote]
I agree that quote above is nonsense. Why would players risk their reputation and a possible suspension on something that doesn’t work? You don’t need to have any personal experience with them to see the facts-two poeple before 1998 ever hit 60 hr in a season, three have after '98 two of which did it multiple times. All three steroid users. How does that not affect the performance records of major league baseball?
[/quote]
Dimensions of the ball parks.
Height of the pitchers mound
No blacks/latinos in the league until 1947
Travel schedule → fatigue
There are other things at play beside PEDs that affect record breaking. But it is silly to think that PEDs played no role. True. [/quote]
Without a doubt other there are other factors that affect the record books, I agree. Just saying it’s no coincidence the the guys breaking those records, the most famous records, are the ones on PEDs.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
age matters though. a young person will see virtually no improvement. whereas a deteriorating older person will see significant improvements. there isnt a single age to know when gh will help in those regards [/quote]
So then it’s basically an irrelevant fact when it comes to 95%+ of Major Leaguers. Correct?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
"PEDs can affect, if anything, musculature, which in baseball translates to power. They do not, and cannot, do anything to improve hand-eye coordination, vision, ball judgement, timing, or any of the factors that go into hitting except actual power, the bat speed that determines the ball velocity and thus its travel distance.
Examinations of the actual records of major-league baseball for over a century, with an especial focus on the last 25 or so years, those now being attributed to a “steroids era”, show clearly and conclusively–by a number of independent analyses by a number of independent analysts each using a different methodology–that there simply is not any power boost needing explaining: PEDs are an “answer” lacking a pertinent question. This fact has been disguised by the analytically faulty method of counting power events instead of determining their rate of occurrence in hitting, and further confounded by changes in the baseball, notably the juicing whose effects were felt in 1994 and possibly back in 1993, when the change occurred.
PED use, to whatever extent it may have existed, simply did not affect any of the performance records of major-league baseball.
"
[/quote]
HGH use has been definitively proven to improve eyesight. THAT makes all the difference in the world. Steroids make you stronger, period. They make you stronger in your upper body and your lower body, and any discrepancy between the two is immaterial. Hand/wrist/forearm strength is easily as important as leg strength when it comes to hitting. Strong hands/forearms equals bat speed, and bat speed equals home runs. In fact, I would argue that the increased upper body strength they add is even more important to marginal hitters than lower body strength; a marginal hitter is such for many reasons, not the least of which is their timing. They’re late on the fastball and out in front of the off-speed pitch more often than great hitters. With strong hands/forearms, they can still hit the ball out of the park when they’re a little off-balance and their lower body is largely removed from the swing.
Anyone who would say that getting stronger doesn’t increase your ability to hit home runs is beyond ignorant. If there is ONE thing you should have learned from this site by now it’s that a stronger athlete, all other things being equal, is the superior athlete. Baseball is not the exception to the rule and only someone who has never played baseball and doesn’t lift weights would not understand this.[/quote]
FTR, I just presented it for discussion and didn’t actually say I agreed/disagreed with what I quoted.
Out of curiousity, have you used steroids while playing baseball vs not? Do you have firsthand knowledge that HGH improves eyesight?
If not, why do you believe it?
[/quote]
I never took steroids when I played and I was a pitcher, so I’m hardly qualified to state from personal experience whether HGH improves one’s ability to hit. I believe it because HGH improves muscle degeneration and poor eyesight is muscle degeneration. The pupil is a muscle that holds the lens in place, which affects the eye’s ability to focus. Stronger pupils (muscles) equals a better and longer-lasting ability to focus clearly and quickly.
http://doctor-patino.com/eyesight.html
The thing about those who argue that steroids don’t improve the ability to hit is that they look at one singular dimension to hitting. It’s a multi-dimensional athletic movement.
There’s neuromuscular coordination: If I were to use steroids I would gain strength quicker and I would recover quicker, meaning that I could lift more weight and more often. If I do this and I’m working out to increase maximal strength and explosive strength (the hallmark of any good athlete’s program) I’ll increase neuromuscular coordination more quickly than I would naturally.
By increasing neuromuscular coordination I would essentially have increased my “eye/hand coordination”, as the link you provided terms it. I highly doubt the claim that steroids have a more concentrated effect on the upper body than the lower body. The lower body is where the highest concentration of high-threshold motor units is and the glutes, hams and quads all carry the potential to gain large amounts of mass. Even if there is this alleged discrepancy, it does nothing to diminish the fact that steroids WILL increase strength in the lower body.
Furthermore, strength IS a major component for hitting home runs. There are many components, swing type, timing, ballpark, etc. But the easiest component to alter is strength. ANY hitter, if all other things were equal, would hit more home runs if he were stronger. It widens the margin for error.
I mean, if someone wants to deny the influence steroids have had on the record book, there are all sorts of ways to interpret the available evidence (much of which is dubious anyways) in order to fit into that argument. But common sense tells me otherwise. Bat speed and timing is everything in terms of hitting home runs. The ability to generate speed comes from power and power comes from strength and strength can be greatly increased in a shorter amount of time with steroids which can lead to increased neuromuscular coordination and HGH can improve eyesight…so I don’t see how anyone could argue that steroids and/or HGH use doesn’t improve a hitter’s ability to hit the ball farther.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
age matters though. a young person will see virtually no improvement. whereas a deteriorating older person will see significant improvements. there isnt a single age to know when gh will help in those regards [/quote]
So then it’s basically an irrelevant fact when it comes to 95%+ of Major Leaguers. Correct?
Eyesight deterioration doesn’t have anything to do with age. It has to do with accumulated stress and strain, something major league baseball players accumulate at a higher pace than the average person. So it’s conceivable to think that deteriorating eyesight in major leaguers occurs at a much younger age than it does in the rest of the population. That isn’t to say that they’re all going blind in the Majors; their eyesight is collectively far above the norm to begin with.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Eyesight-Deteriorate-With-Age-Or-Can-You-Prevent-It?&id=2904290
[/quote]