Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Moneyball


Lou E Ville

Recommended Posts

Eric Walker is anything but asinine.  He showed Bonds power spikes and used him as a case study.  The power spike isn't as crazy as people believe. There is a reason why this guy has been a consultant for thirty years.  Just because you disagree with it because of common sense most likely, doesn't make it asinine.   Nothing is common sense in data. Still, ignoring Bonds completely, it's pretty obvious you didn't read the entirety of the article. Or even that part fully.  Not only was the spike completely natural, but that was also when they changed the composition of the ball.   That explains Bonds completely.

 

Outside of the case study you'd be hard pressed to refute anything in there.  How steroids couldn't possibly help with power as they help with upperbody and the power of a swing is generated through your lower body, no variation between users/nonusers, no difference in ERA's other than when they changed the baseball.

 

Eric Walker and every reputable statistician who has ever done work on steroids has found no evidence for them helping.

 

 

From the article:

Let's take a closer look at that last point, which may well be the key. All modern ballplayers work out regularly, in season and out of season. But Bonds, who had long relied chiefly on his innate abilities and thus ordinary training, came to the conclusion after the 1998 season that if he were to prolong his career, a much more strenuous regimen would be necessary. There is no doubt about that well-known decision: it is the very basis of the claims that that was when he started using steroids. But if his adopting of steroids into his augmented regimen is open to question, the augmentation of the regimen is not: it is commonplace knowledge. And "augmentation" is much too mild a term. In John Bloom's book Barry Bonds: A Biography, we find this:

In fact, for most of his career, Bonds has been known as one of the best-conditioned, best-prepared, and hardest-working players in the game, by both those who like and dislike him. In his interview for this book, Oakland Tribune sportswriter John Suchon noted that Bonds [now] undergoes a training regime during the off-season that is so strenuous, other major leaguers who have joined him have had trouble keeping up with his pace. . . .

Does all this prove that Bonds did not take steroids? No. But in evaluating the matter, we need to remember that it is not a binary yes/no decision. There are three quite distinct questions we need to be asking:

  1. Did Bonds take steroids?
  2. If so, did he knowingly take them?
  3. In either case, does it matter to his performance records?

So how many of you 43-year-olds look and weigh the same as you did when you were 23?

We have already seen that it is highly unlikely that even if Bonds did take steroids they had any material effect on his performance. The massive increase in rigor of his training regimen appears by itself quite adequate to account for the moderate post-1998 boost in his power, especially considering--yet again--that steroids do not much (if at all) boost the crucial lower-body musculature that gives a batter power, whereas endless squats and like workout exercises do. A

--------------

 

All complete and utter bullshit.  Might as well been lifted from a Roger Clemens, Lance Armstrong or Marion Jones bio circa 2001:

 

Bonds didn't do PEDs!! He was just a crazy work out maven!  No mention how PEDs allow you to work out and recover so much faster.

 

Oh, and this little gem:

He may or may not have taken steroids, knowingly or unknowingly--but it doesn't matter to his performance.

 

This story is still in the Bonds denial phase.  Let me say this to you politely about your peer reviewed little piece of fiction:

Get it the F*ck out of here.

Edited by yk9001
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, for most of his career, Bonds has been known as one of the best-conditioned, best-prepared, and hardest-working players in the game, by both those who like and dislike him. In his interview for this book, Oakland Tribune sportswriter John Suchon noted that Bonds [now] undergoes a training regime during the off-season that is so strenuous, other major leaguers who have joined him have had trouble keeping up with his pace. . . .

 

 

alg-laughing-jpg.jpg

 

laughingArtist%5B3%5D.jpgLaughing_Animals_2570870k.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me know which expert is fully behind the concept that Bonds may or may not have, knowing or unknowlingly, took PEDs.

 

A list of the Bonds Truthers, please, BashBrother.

You are missing the point, yk.  The article is a bit dated (All the data is still relevant) so it says stuff like this, but if you read carefully instead of trying to cherry pick this is ultimately irrelevant.

 

Also, for people who think steroids can make you super human looking, that's wrong.   I think most of these myths come from misconceptions and ignorance about steroids.

Edited by Bashbrothers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point of Moneyball was that the A's had to find a way to replace the 11.5 WAR they lost when Giambi and Damon left. They found a way to replace 2/3 of that for less that $5MM using players that pretty much every other team thought were valueless. The difference between replacing that WAR and not was the difference between winning the division and not making the playoffs. Mulder, Zito, and Hudson did great in 2002. And Chavez and Tejada played excellent. But they were on the team in 2001 also. Their performance wasn't what needed to be replaced. The A's needed to replace Giambi and Damon. They found a way to do it by using no money to get castoffs while changing the way teams valued certain stats. And they won one more game than in 2001 despite losing almost 12 WAR of performance.

Edited by HaloMagic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to suggest that the movie should have gone out of its way to mention the Angels. I just meant to say that as an Angels fan, I was struck by the scene where Beane tells players in the clubhouse he doesn't want them to bunt or steal. You as the casual viewer are being led to believe that this is some revelation from Beane and Brand (and by extension, Bill James), but the first thing it made me think was "Hey, we didn't do too badly offensively that year doing both of those things. Our team improved a hell of a lot more than Oakland's did from 2001 to 2002."  

 

I really liked the movie the first time I watched it. The second and third time around I started noticing the flaws. That's true of any movie, though. Except midget porn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to suggest that the movie should have gone out of its way to mention the Angels. I just meant to say that as an Angels fan, I was struck by the scene where Beane tells players in the clubhouse he doesn't want them to bunt or steal. You as the casual viewer are being led to believe that this is some revelation from Beane and Brand (and by extension, Bill James), but the first thing it made me think was "Hey, we didn't do too badly offensively that year doing both of those things. Our team improved a hell of a lot more than Oakland's did from 2001 to 2002."  

 

I really liked the movie the first time I watched it. The second and third time around I started noticing the flaws. That's true of any movie, though. Except midget porn.

Sacrificing a lot doesn't mean you will have a bad offense, it just means you are suppressing your offensive value.  Stealing may or may not be beneficial.  But you have to hit above the break even point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be the appeal to authority if there wasn't countless data I just showed through the link.   People often want to get credentials when stuff like this comes out to add validity. And it's also peer reviewed.  All important in making conclusions.  It is in fact, how we go about disproving everything else in science.  Study, find results, conclusion, rinse and repeat.

 

Professor Arthur DeVany

 

Will Carroll (Medical Effects of PED's)

 

Professors Jonathan R. Cole

 

Arthur De Vany is a professor of economics at Cal State Irvine.

 

Will Carroll is a sports writer that has no diploma.

 

Jonathan R. Cole is a professor of Sociology at Columbia University

 

 

None of these guys are physicians or have any medical background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur De Vany is a professor of economics at Cal State Irvine.

 

Will Carroll is a sports writer that has no diploma.

 

Jonathan R. Cole is a professor of Sociology at Columbia University

 

 

None of these guys are physicians or have any medical background.

Will Carroll has a medical background.  I didn't say the others were in medicine.

 

If you want more information on the medical effects: http://steroids-and-baseball.com/medical-effects.shtml

 

 

Sources and detailed explanations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carrol has no medical background, education or even a week as a paramedic ride along. He is a sportswriter that found a nitch in reporting injuries and getting soundbites from trainers and doctors. That does not make him an expert.

 

Your web page link is a bunch of horseshit that is about as valid as Melky Cabrera's website. Quit trolling this crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/actual-effects.shtml

 

 

The guy who has made this thesis has worked as a statistician and a consultant for baseball teams for over thirty years.  Every other statistician who has done thorough and brilliant work on PED's have found no positive effect or negative. 

 

that was a long and interesting read.  took awhile when you follow all of the links and look up the related medical references.  It was actually something I've been meaning to delve into in a greater degree of detail for a while.  Having a lot of that in once place was useful. 

 

having a medical background and spending the last 20 years in the field on both the clinical and research side of the industry, I must say this set of articles does not represent the scientific method in any way shape or form.  The conclusions are based on assumptions of other assumptions from two lines cherry picked from medical journal articles that if you read in their entirety completely and utterly refute the initial assumption and therefore the conclusion. 

 

While reading this, the one thing that kept running through my mind was this quote:

 

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said;... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was a long and interesting read.  took awhile when you follow all of the links and look up the related medical references.  It was actually something I've been meaning to delve into in a greater degree of detail for a while.  Having a lot of that in once place was useful. 

 

having a medical background and spending the last 20 years in the field on both the clinical and research side of the industry, I must say this set of articles does not represent the scientific method in any way shape or form.  The conclusions are based on assumptions of other assumptions from two lines cherry picked from medical journal articles that if you read in their entirety completely and utterly refute the initial assumption and therefore the conclusion. 

 

While reading this, the one thing that kept running through my mind was this quote:

 

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said;... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

 

Yeah, but it's not like your a doctor or anything...

 

DOCWAUKEE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it's not like your a doctor or anything...

 

DOCWAUKEE!

Mrs Docwaukee has since made me swear to tell people that I was in prison rather than admit we lived in milwaukee.  So as far as anyone here is concerned, prior to my return to California, I did a stint in Joliet for grand theft auto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was a long and interesting read.  took awhile when you follow all of the links and look up the related medical references.  It was actually something I've been meaning to delve into in a greater degree of detail for a while.  Having a lot of that in once place was useful. 

 

having a medical background and spending the last 20 years in the field on both the clinical and research side of the industry, I must say this set of articles does not represent the scientific method in any way shape or form.  The conclusions are based on assumptions of other assumptions from two lines cherry picked from medical journal articles that if you read in their entirety completely and utterly refute the initial assumption and therefore the conclusion. 

 

While reading this, the one thing that kept running through my mind was this quote:

 

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said;... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul..."

 The conclusion of the thesis was that steroids have no effect on performance, and there is no evidence to the contrary to that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To think for even a minute steroids don't increase performance is laughable. I never took the leap, but know dozens who have. I know a lot more about it than average joe.

Steroids increase performance. No different than any other drug effects your performance.

Sure, steroids won't make you or me suddenly be able to play sports like pro athletes. The natural skill will always be more important. But if you don't think being stronger will help (in any sport), you're fooling yourself.

Why the sudden drop in power throughout baseball in the more aggressive testing era? Did they change the ball again? Why are so many players slowing in their 30's now, as opposed to a decade ago when the star players were still the same hitter at 32 years old and up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To think for even a minute steroids don't increase performance is laughable. I never took the leap, but know dozens who have. I know a lot more about it than average joe.

Steroids increase performance. No different than any other drug effects your performance.

Sure, steroids won't make you or me suddenly be able to play sports like pro athletes. The natural skill will always be more important. But if you don't think being stronger will help (in any sport), you're fooling yourself.

Why the sudden drop in power throughout baseball in the more aggressive testing era? Did they change the ball again? Why are so many players slowing in their 30's now, as opposed to a decade ago when the star players were still the same hitter at 32 years old and up?

Is there less power or is there less contact?  Strike outs are way up.

 

You can't use common sense when discussing data.  The evidence shows there is no increase from users and non users.   Obviously, it's hard to get a sample without bias and it's not ethical to do a controlled study. 

 

It's rather easy to explain.  Power is not only generated through the lower body (anybody who has played baseball can testify to this) but baseball is such a mechanically dominated game as well as hand eye coordination.

 

Being beefy up top doesn't help you hit home runs or pitch better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there less power or is there less contact?  Strike outs are way up.

 

You can't use common sense when discussing data.  The evidence shows there is no increase from users and non users.   Obviously, it's hard to get a sample without bias and it's not ethical to do a controlled study. 

 

It's rather easy to explain.  Power is not only generated through the lower body (anybody who has played baseball can testify to this) but baseball is such a mechanically dominated game as well as hand eye coordination.

 

Being beefy up top doesn't help you hit home runs or pitch better. 

read the actual medical journal articles they reference.  they cherry pick one line from at least two of the articles that conclude equal gains in upper and lower body strength and muscle mass. 

 

common sense is all we have.   it was an interesting effort yet to insinuate that you can't use common sense to analyze data is asinine.  They actually don't have "data".  They are trying to conglomerate a collection of various information.  Their 'evidence' reads more like a philosophical proof and is in no way actual evidence. 

 

they don't know who was and was not using and to what degree.  they use power factor to obtain their conclusion with is based on tb/avg.  You don't need power to get a total base.  You get a total base for a walk.  You can also increase your number of total bases because of speed.  they cherry pick lines from medical articles without citing the entire conclusion of the article.  they don't know what peds people were using if they were. 

 

it's like looking at the entire population of california and tracking the mortality rate over a number of years and saying that even though more people smoke than they used to, the mortality rate hasn't increased so smoking must not be bad.

 

again, while I appreciate the effort of the authors and found the information somewhat interesting I would implore anyone to dissect the so called data they have, the method by which it was obtained and the assumptions made in coming to certain conclusions.  It's a hot mess of just about every mistake in collection and analysis that could be made.  If this was submitted to a medical journal for publication, they would either throw up, laugh, or both.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...