more on grandy:

From Elias: With his triple tonight, Curtis Granderson now has 34 home runs, 10 triples and 22 steals. Only two other players in American League history have had 30+ HR, 10+ triples and 20+ steals in the same season: Ken Williams, 1922 Browns and Nomar Garciaparra, 1997 Red Sox. Seven players have done it in the National League.

[1] Nomar? Wow..he was so good before the injuries. Never heard of ken Williams. I'd love to see either Granderson get some MVP love this year.

[1] Curtis looks good in pinstripes and road greys. That's for damn sure.
That jones homer was a shot.

[2] Yep...before the, er, injuries. It just shows you what clean living, hard work, and a positive attitude can do for a professional athlete.

[4] Yes, cause steroids and HGH make you an all-round great ball-player. Just like Mike Jacobs, just busted!! He's going to the HOF cause he took drugs!!

[5] VERY badly phrased, but you get my point..you're either a great ball player or you're not. Some took roids, some had TJ surgery, some too uppers..who cares?

[6] Well, I care.

But really I was just poking some fun.I'm not going to be drawn into a facile bad-player-X-took-roids-so-roids-must-not-work argument.

Hey, Give me some credit, at least I'm poking fun at Nomar, not Bonds, so I'm not racist. Oh wait, he's Latino, I guess.

[8] I don't hear you accusing Dustin Pedroia of anything, let's just put it that way.

[7] Don't see the "fun" in beating that dead horse. Still waiting for any evidence that steroids help baseball players play better..still waiting...
[8] Sure, we all know none of the Barry Bonds hatred was ever racially motivated, none of it! Just like the (content removed due to violation of Banter rules.)!

[9] Well, I have accused McGwire and Brady Anderson (among others) in the past, so does that win me any equal opportunity points?

Regarding Pedroia (whose name suzspiciously sounds like 'roids), have there been any rumours? I mean that honestly...I don't follow as closely I used to.

[10] Oh come now, the Dead Horse is a Banter tradition, much older than the Score Truck. I embrace both.

Regarding evidence: sorry, won't lure me in with that one either. You and I both know that there will never ever be such evidence, because it will never be practical to test such a propsition scientifically under controlled conditions. Plus you and both know that even if science or whatever presents evidence, it won't matter because we will never know the details of specific players# usage. And you and I both know that even that won't matter for a large number of fans (even a majority?), because they will easily adopt your roids-aspirin-wheaties-what'-the-difference position.

However, as a professional historian I will continue to allow myself to draw reasonable conclusions from the historical (rather than clinical) evidence we have.

[10] Sure, we all know none of the Barry Bonds hatred was ever racially motivated, none of it!

I call your false dichotomy and raise you an irony.

[11] So, you provide a detailed list of why there is no evidence steroids/HGH helps baseball players, then conclude that you will still allow yourself to draw "reasonable" conclusions? Is this a new branch of analysis I missed since leaving grad school, where lack of ANY scientific evidence is no detriment? And what is this distinction between "historical" and "clinical" evidence?

[12] Clever but not fair as it's night time here and after getting the OK Jazz children to bed I am on my second beer..can no longer match witty serve & volley!

[13] A serious answer to your question. Historial evidence would refer to evidence (data) that occurred in the past and must be eveluated using the historical method (a sort of hybrid of subjective analysis and empiricism). This includes records, archives, anecdotes, etc.

Clinical evidence (and I sort of made that term up) would include comparitive, laboratory data that can be applied to historical circumstances. So for example, we can tell from various trials that a soldier can march on average X distance wearing Y amount of armour eating Z calories. Clinical evidence can, and has, been used to overturn historical evidence. for example, the testimony of an eye witness (Josh Gibson hit the ball 800 feet!!!--this BTW is historical evidence) may be scientifically impossible, so we would tend to dismiss it.

However, the lack of clinical (or if your prefer, scientific) evidence cannot in itself constitute disproof of historical evidence. This is where things get tricky with the steroid debate. As I said, there will never be a way to verify either positively or negatively the effects of steroids on the game from a scientific/clinical perspective. Some clinical trials may produce suggestive results, but nothing will be conclusive or close to conclusive. Too many variables and not enough controls. But that does not mean we should not look at historical evidence.

So for example---and to stir the pot---I would look at the spike in offence that corresponded closely to the anecdotal evidence that steroids were in high use. I would look at the physical transformation of several of the game's best players and consider the record-setting performances of these same players.

Or, let's use another example. Your assertion, made many times (a dead horse?) that Bond's received greater scrutiny is based on historical not scientiific or clinical evidence. You reasonably concluded this by comparing and subjectively analyzing criticism of Bonds v. other players of his era, placed within a larger context of race in the US. Congratulations! You made a historical argument without a shred of scientific data!

snuffy stirnweiss is just too good a name.

the big man looked a bit better and his numbers were better than his last two starts but this isn't the BIG MAN. i hope he is okay, and it's just some minor fatigue, the 6 man rotation, just a slightly off stretch and not something more. i think it would be hard to do much in the post season without the BIG MAN.

[15] His real name was George Henry Stirnweiss. Imagine, if he played today for the Yankees his nickname would something really clever like Georgey or Stirny.

We live in the Age of Iron, I say.

[13] A list of reasons why we can't prove that steroids helped players is also a list of reasons we can't prove they didn't help. In that space, you've got to make your own call.

[16] haha, very true.
to be safe maybe i should just think of him as snuff stirnweiss.

[17]Oh sure, you had to be calm, rational and concise.

[14] "However, the lack of clinical (or if your prefer, scientific) evidence cannot in itself constitute disproof of historical evidence."

It doesn't PROVE it either though! A jump in HR rates and a subjective look at players' physiques is hardly worthy of the historical method. In the 1960s there is clear evidence was to why it was a "pitcher's" era: the high mound, ball players who did no weight training, Cro-Magnon level injury care, huge ballparks. In the so-called "steroid-era", there's a lot of hearsay and the Mitchell Report..I'm sure we both agree to the value of that nonsense...

Also, the treatment of Bonds in the media has been well documented and is easily verifiable, look it up. (Bonds is still a major-league a-hole but to deny the racial angle with the guy..c'mon..)

Will leave the last word to you (though will check-in in the morning no doubt!)

[9] Oh, jeez, that was supposed to be a joke. (Because (i) Dusty is not exactly an obvious candidate for a steroids accusation, and (ii) gritty little players are always white players.)

[20] Well, no historical argument can ever *prove* anything. Like I said, we have to make a reasonable of the evidence that we have.

And that is exactly what you have done with your Bonds example. You do not have dozens or hundreds or thousands of interviews with people, carefully set up, to elucidate their racial motives. You don't have brain scans or lie detector test results or any other shred of scientific evidence that the criticism of Bonds was even in part racially motivated.Yes, we can look up the way bonds was treated by the media, but that does not constitute verifiable proof of the motives or underlying reasons behind his treatment.

That requires a methodological leap of faith; for you to drag a reasonable conclusion from anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, interpreted through a larger historical lens (i.e., race in America). It just seems so obvious to you, yet it is 'only' a historical argument.

Oh, I completely disagree about historical evidence, though. Sabermetrics always, always, always uses historical evidence. I don't think it ever uses "historical method". I don't see why there couldn't be good historical, measurable evidence of the positive effects of steroids, if there really were any.

[21] I can never be so sure with you!

Anyway, for your information, Pedroia ias half Potugeuse, so be careful with your jokes, Mr. R(ac)I(st)Yank.

Oh, but some of my best friends are Potugeuse. The folks I really can't stand are Betelgeuse.

Betelgeuse.

Betelge...

[22] Calling for Bonds to be "lynched" is not "anecdotal evidence" nor does it require a lie-detector test for proof of racism. Obviously, that's the extreme example but not a made up one.
Also, you (and others) seem to take it for granted that steroids/HGH helped baseball players..this does not include pitchers? When most positive tests in the minors were from pitchers? This clouds the discussion..

OK, am getting nasty vibes from Mrs. Jazz now, I must depart!

[23] Do Sabermatricians ever rely on more or less subjective data: e.g. everyone said Joe DiMaggio was a great defender, and since we lack adequate hard data to prove or disprove this, we will side with witnesses at the time. If so, they use the historical method.

How could there possibly be measurable historical evidence of the positive effects (if any) of steroids, if we will never know who used how much for how long, etc. Too many variables.

However, we could begin to get some clinical evidence if someone decided to run a really big lab experiment with lots of subjects and controls over a long period of time. But even then, we would have to make a judgment call as to the applicability of such test results to the historical cases: do high level athletes respond the same, better or worse to steroids? How much would a player's performance improve v. other juiced players? v. non-juiced players? To what degree of accurace can we measure the statistical impact on the game (i.e., what % of HRs player X hit)?

[26] Well, I'm gonna be apain in the ass and say that it does. Assuming anyone actually called for Bonds to be lynched (link, please) you would further have to prove that the person had a specific historic understand of the word. Now, that is a reasonable conclsuion for you to darw, but it's simply not 'scientific' or 'clinical' evidence. You're making a historical argument based on context, anecdotal, coincidental evidence, etc.

And I have no problem with that method.

[26] Also, you (and others) seem to take it for granted that steroids/HGH helped baseball players..this does not include pitchers? When most positive tests in the minors were from pitchers? This clouds the discussion..

Indeed it does, and another reason why there will never be firm 'scientific' evidence of theimpact, if any, on the game. I actually suspect that all great players who used benefited, both pitchers and hitters, and probably disproportionately benefitted relative to average or poor players.

[27] Hm, well, I'm sure sabermetricians do that, but not qua sabermetricians, if you see what I mean.

How could there possibly be measurable historical evidence of the positive effects (if any) of steroids, if we will never know who used how much for how long, etc. Too many variables.

But sabermetricians love Too Many Variables problems. I think I don't see your point here. Disentangling variables from one another is exactly what sabermetrics is all about.

There are patterns you would expect if steroids had a significant effect on, say, HR production. You would expect to see the trajectories of players in the steroid era look quite different from the trajectories of players from earlier and later (as soon as we can be confident that we've got a 'later') era. Taking the collection of players known to have used steroids and then stopped, you would expect to see fall-off greater than usual for their ages.
But these patterns are not seen.

There could be other effects, of course, but so far nobody has found them.

[28] http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin03102006.html

[31] Wait a minute, the author (Zirin) of the article used the word lynch. That was his interpretation of a single radio announcer who said "if he did it, hang him." It is again a leap of interpretation to conclude that the radio announcer was racially motivated, or that he chose his words specirfically to invoke the image of the lynchings of blacks in the US long ago.

Pretty weak evidence, and certainly not scientific.

I read a first hand account of using steroids by a bicycling reporter a number of years ago. He got a doctor to supervise his use of a number of PED's. One of the most interesting experiences he described, which has been documented in a lot of other first hand accounts, was the vision improvement which had him go from 20-40 to 20-10. See the ball, hit the ball. And I know this is heresy to those that want to paint a brush over the entire generation, but didn't we all know these guys were using. I mean Brady Anderson's 52 home runs? And if you want to stretch it further, how about his best friend, Cal Ripken. Is Cal not supposed to go into the HOF? I mean a case can certainly be made that you can't play that many games, day after day with all the nagging injuries baseball players have without some sort of crutch. (Not saying Cal was a user but couldn't a case be made against a lot of guys?

[32] In fact, looking over the article again, the entire piece consists of little more than a few then current and former players claiming that Bonds was the object of a witch hunt that was, according to one former plaer, racially motivated. So what you have is a few individuals, some of them not disinterested parties (Clemens calling the proces a witch hunt is kind of funy, no), and not really eye-witnesses, speculating on the motives of sportswriters. And the evidence itself is presented in a highly one-sided format by an author who admits his bias in the piece.

That's your incontrovertable, scientific evidence? It's about as scientific as me thinking that 74 HRs at age 38 or whatever is a bit of a smoking gun for PEDs.

[33] Interesting -- what PED improved his vision? Do you have a link to that story? I wonder why vision-enhancing drugs are not widely available. (People consume lasik surgery like mad, despite the risks!)

I'm actually annoyed (as I've mentioned here before) that nobody is raising the steroid specter about Jacoby Ellsbury. (Jacoby is an ambiguous race guy, a little like Jeter.) He doesn't have the Jim Thome build, so maybe that's why, but his HR jump is suspicious if ever there was a suspicious spike.

[34] Ok Prof, you win. Clearly no sign of racism when an announcer on the world's most powerful sports network uses the phrase "hang him" in reference to a highly disliked black athlete. It's all in their imagination, right?

[33] Interesting! Would like to read more about that.

If steroids make you stronger then they enhance performance. The harder you can hit, the faster the ball goes, the more likely it won't be caught.

[37] I never said there was no sign of racism. All I have argued---and I stand by it---is that you are drawing the same sorts of conclusions about racism as I am about steroids, using highly imperfect, subjective, anecdotal, non-scientific/clinical arguments.

Just replace the statement you made with steroids: so, highly placed announces at powerful sports networks think players juiced and that it impacted the game; many current and former players (e.g. Mike Schmidt) decried the use of steroids. Everyone "knows" that steroids let you hit the ball farther, etc. It's all in their imagination, right?

You are so hell bent on seeing racism that you are missing the *methodological* argument that I am making.

[37] Now for the record, I am not convinced that just because an announcer said "if he did it, hang him" about Bonds, that it was racially motivated. Even Zirin raises the possibility that the announcer was simply oblivious: "is Seibel oblivious that some may take offense to the image of a controversial Black athlete being lynched..."

My suspicion is that Seibel was guilty of *insensitivity* and a lack of historical awareness by choosing that particular phrase. I highly doubt he sat there rubbing his palms, twirling his mustache and thinking "yeah, let's LYNCH THE DARKIE." Maybe it would have been better if he said "if he did it, fry him." Is it possible--even remotely---that the degree of anger shown by Seibel was in proportion to the magnitude of the player (breaking the alltime HR record held by the very respected...black man...Hank Aaron), more than because he is a racist?

Now, you could make a reasonable argument that the degree of anger over Bonds was disproportionate, and this reflects a subtle bias against black players---indeed, that seems to be Zirin's larger point. But that again is a much more nuanced---and non-scientific---argument.

Tapping into this thread I saw there were 40 comments and assumed I was missing a day game, or ARod had been traded to a Japanese team for 13 pitching prospects.
How relieved am I to see it's another discussion about steroids, and racism in baseball!
What time is the roundtable on Francisco Cervelli, and roster construction, gents?

Just kidding, compelling perspectives as always, fellows.

I mean Brady Anderson's 52 home runs?

Ah, yes, Brady Anderson. Hell, look at that spike, those must have been powerful steroids. I wonder if he got them from Davey Johnson, who went from 5 in 1972 to 43 in 1973 and ranks ahead of Brady Anderson on the list of players with the single greatest leap in home runs from the previous year.

And, just like Anderson, Johnson's use of steroids was so successful, that he promptly stopped taking them and never hit home runs with any real frequency again in his career ("non-steroid" high 18) since he had been released and was playing in Japan in little over a year.

Steroids, the scourge of baseball since 1973!

[40] What kind of person would go on national radio and say that, in the first place? Secondly, using the phrase "hang him" in relation to a prominent black athlete goes way beyond "being insensitive", it's a racially charged phrase that anyone with a passing awareness of US history would know. Surely you aware of all the "code words" to express racial sentiments in our public discourse?

Finally, racism in the sports/media world is again extensively documented. We've yet to see any scientific proof, a point you acknowledged, on the effects of steroids on baseball players.

Now I need some coffee...