Comments on: Pedro’s New Digs

By: Wrighteous

Wrighteous — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:40:49 +0000

ur wrong

By: ryan

ryan — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:43:04 +0000

gotta disagree with you about pedro. just because a tremendous season has never happened before doesn’t automatically make it suspicious. babe ruth was hitting more homers than entire teams in the 1920′s (had never happened before or since..) but nobody is going to suggest he was using roids. pedro was a unique pitcher because his changeup and curve were both tremendous pitches (one wouldn’t ordinarily attribute such skills to juicing). i think pedro was just a perfect storm of pitching talent.

By: MPC

MPC — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:37:12 +0000

I really don’t care if a guy juiced. As Raf and Bmore noted, there have been drugs in baseball for a loooooong time. There is no “PED issue.” The media and Bug Selig have made it an issue.

By: MPC

MPC — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:31:44 +0000

Philly-

Because being a Philadelphia sports fan isn’t embarrassing? When the Phillies don’t luck their way into a WS win this year, you’ll throw away all your Phillies gear and wear Eagles stuff year-round like the rest of the losers in that city.

By: Wrighteous

Wrighteous — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:44:15 +0000

within the context of his own era, gibson’s performance actually does not stand out as much as randy and pedro’s do. also, he put up career lows in babip (.240 in 1968 compared to a career average .278) and a career high in lob% (86.7 compared to a career average of 75.7—a very considerable jump), indicating that the unusual nature of his low era can to some extent be explained by luck. gibson’s raw numbers, generally speaking, are also pretty consisnent throughout his career and he had what seems to be a very reasonable career arc.

the body-size argument is ridiculous, just look at the laundry list of players who have tested positive since 2003. the first player ever to test positive was ray’s middle infielder alex sanchez, hardly a monster at 5’10 179. the first pitcher to test positive was ryan franklin, who is a little bigger at 6’3 190, but still is not huge.

By: BosoxBob

BosoxBob — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:29:46 +0000

Wrighteous, have you seen Pedro’s body? How could a scrawny little guy like that have been doing steroids? This is what I hate most about the whole steroids thing – that anybody who has had an exceptional year (or years) is assumed to be guilty of juicing. Why can’t there be players who are just a cut above the rest? Bob Gibson had an unheard of 1.12 ERA in 1968, with a 22-9 record, 13 shutouts, 0.85 WHIP, 268 Ks and 304.2 IP. Was he on steroids?

By: Wrighteous

Wrighteous — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:23:37 +0000

in this case, their performances are such extreme outliers that they do warrant suspicion, see previous posts. that one sentence was in sum of a much larger argument. thank you for being opportunistic and taking it way out of context.

By: All4tookie

All4tookie — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:19:20 +0000

If someone does something that never happened before, and hasn’t happened since, that makes it immediately questionable and illegitimate?

Logic is your friend.

By: Wrighteous

Wrighteous — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:36:39 +0000

ok, so i was kidding a bit about gwynn. i do stand by what i say about pedro and randy. can anyone honestly look at some of the numbers pedro and randy put up during the prime steroid era years and not be at least a little suspicious, given how unusual those performances were?

like i keep saying: never happened before, hasnt happened since. we have a right to at least question these performances.

By: TomG

TomG — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:18:42 +0000

That explains the tinfoil hat.