Buy The Book
Washington has been immortalized on a Mountain. Will the world end if we give Bonds and Clemens a plaque?
Check your hate at the door please, thanks.
Rob and Colin are talking about evidence.
It sounds to me that Rob is REALLY talking about observational bias, not evidence. I tried finding a good definition for evidence. Kind of hard. At the minimum, it requires data or information or something that otherwise exists. It also requires an event to have occurred, or that relates to an entity’s property or behaviour.
So, evidence would require some sort of association of information to property.
What is the evidence that Edgar is more likely to have been a PED user than Jeter? That there were more PED users during Edgar’s time than Jeter’s? Well, that is an inference based on information. But, then we’re not talking about Edgar and Jeter specifically, but rather them as representative of a population. Rob is asking us to think of those two specifically.
We can list the 17,000 players in MLB history, and list their odds of having used PED from 0.00001 to .999999, and using nothing but Bayes and the Mitchell Report. Just because you use evidence and you apply Bayes doesn’t mean you have used evidence to learn anything about Edgar and Jeter SPECIFICALLY.
So, a third requirement in evidence would I think be that you can associate the information and event more directly to the specific entity being targetted.
Otherwise, we’re getting into an impractical philosophical discussion with no hope of having a resolution. That’s what drinking at a bar at 2 AM is for.
It’s happened.
Katin, 28, was told he would be suspended for 50 games, and he appealed the findings. Two months after he got that phone call the suspension was overturned, making him the only ballplayer who has successfully appealed. Katin is hoping his former University of Miami teammate, Ryan Braun, will be the second.
In Katin’s case, his first sample came back with a high level of testosterone.
“They assumed I was on something,” he said.
In 2007 in the Minor Leagues, players would submit two urine samples—marked “A” and “B.” Katin was notified that he tested positive for high levels of testosterone, and he said the “B” sample was then tested for synthetic drugs. It came back negative. Now, if a player has a high level, Major League Baseball will automatically test for synthetic drugs before contacting the player.
In Braun’s case, they did test for synthetic drugs (presumably from the A sample). It’s unclear what they are going to test for in the B sample, other than the exact same thing. Unless the B sample is somehow not representative of the A sample, and if they perform the same tests, the margin of error would, presumably, be pretty narrow in Braun’s case.
Justice. Or, at least, what we have to put up with for a functional justice system.
No, I’m not talking about NHL and fighting, but:
I asked Rocker if he became a good pitcher because of PED use. “No. Can I throw 3 or 4 mph harder because of it? Yes. Was my breaking ball better because of it? No. The reason was (for taking it) with my teammates and their confidence laying on my shoulders, with the coaching staff and their confidence on my shoulders, with the millions of Atlanta Braves fans, I am not going to step on that mound with that kind of responsibility with my gun half loaded. Knowing the people I am going to be facing, I know what they’re doing; I am not coming to the mound halfcocked.
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
The issue of PED use has always been about a workplace safety issue. An MLB player’s career is short. And, his existence in MLB is predicated on someone else allowing him to be there. So, how can they make an effective change, unless they are there, and there for a long time? John Rocker was the exact kind of player that PED use was made for: expecting a short career, being able to add a couple of years, limited damage by overuse. Instead of being a career bank thief, he did the one big job and got out with millions basically.
It’s the stars that should be ashamed of themselves. They had huge talent, and they could have put a stop to it. They could have prevented middling talent from having a huge impact. They could have demanded more, from their union. They could have done an Occupy MLBPA.
But, no. The stars didn’t care, for the most part. The MLBPA always treated drug tests as a bargaining chip, something to negotiate away in return for concessions. Marvin Miller, of whom I am a big supporter, missed the boat here, by being indignant that the MLBPA would reopen the CBA and add provisions for testing.
The media of course will not rock the boat, unless others rock it first. Congress knows that if they talk about baseball, it’ll be on TV, and they love TV. Talking about real issues on C-Span doesn’t work for them.
The entire sports world, from top-to-bottom, was complicit in one way or another. No need to sacrifice the non-virgins (Clemens, Bonds) to the gods, to cleanse our souls. But, that’s exactly what the reactionary Holy Writers will do next year, when they will throw Clemens and Bonds into the volcano.
Let’s say that the chances of a false positive for the Braun test is 1 in a 1000. What are the chances that Braun took a banned substance and that he did NOT have a false positive?
On the flip side, sort of, our friend Richard Justice (Houston sports journalist and radio guy) said that he believed Braun (that he did not take anything and it must have been a mistake of some sort). When asked why, he said the usual - Braun is a stand-up, honest, smart guy, etc.
So Justice (unbeknownst to him apparently) was simply stating the anterior or prior probability - that Braun is not a likely candidate for being a PED user. But, we have more information of course. We have a posterior probability that he took a banned substance, which is the 1 minus the probability of a false positive or some other sort of “mistake.”
So, again, given the prior and the posterior, what are the chances that Braun cheated?
And Justice, among others, needs a lesson about Bayesian math…
A revote would be another chance for the spots media to reaffirm its double standard on steroids in MLB and the NFL
David Wade does some good work, but also some questionable conclusions. First the good stuff: for nonpitchers in the last year of PED use, they had 0.42 WAR higher than in the year after. But, as you guys know, there’s a natural 0.5 wins drop in WAR year-to-year due strictly to age-related reasons. So, if anything, he shows it’s no big deal.
But he throws out this doozy:
From ‘09 to ‘10, the average hitter who qualified for the batting title saw his WAR improve by nearly 1.8 wins, a change far larger than the 0.4 win improvement that our average user showed in the year he was using.
I don’t know how many times we have to deal with this selection bias issue, but here we go again. It seems to me that he started with the list of players who had at least 500 PA in 2010, and then looked to see how they did in 2009. He can’t do that.
Another great episode last night, especially if you are a baseball fan.
Larry David::Mark McGwire
as
Woman::Fans
If you don’t know, does it matter?
Poz likes to believe based on incentives.
No, there’s something more here: Massive, massive public pressure. If a player is caught taking steroids in baseball, he’s disgraced. If he’s a great player, he will get humiliated in the Hall of Fame balloting. If he’s a good player, he will get savaged in the media and by fans. If he’s a mediocre player, he will find it hard to get work—teams don’t need that sort of publicity anymore. We’ve seen this happen. We know it’s real. And this sort of real public pressure is not there in football for many logical and illogical reason.
In baseball, the public pressure is so intense that, I think, it has transcended reason and fairness and perspective.
I can mostly accept this among a certain class of players, and Poz agrees that:
Oh, I’m sure there are spare players who are still using, whose careers are on the brink or who just believe they are too smart to get caught. But baseball has ALWAYS had those players willing to push the edge.
But I have to believe that those outside of USA/Canada have much different incentives. Can I presume that in the DR, this phony outrage of PED+baseball is a non-story? As Poz points out, MLB and NFL are treated much differently with regards to PED.
When the “imports” (CFL term) come to MLB, maybe by that time, they’ll be off the juice, and so, Poz is right.
At the least I think, perhaps PED-as-a-major-story-in-MLB is no longer a story. That cherry’s been popped.
p. 292 of Uppity. And on NPR, he said something about what they were giving him they were giving to horses too.
Rob Neyer calls out the BBWAA:
The argument as explicitly made is not about performance, but rather morality. The guy cheated.
But here’s a stone-cold fact: The non-prescription use of prescription drugs—amphetamines, anabolic steroids, you name it—has been a violation of Major League Baseball’s drug policy since 1971. Every player who ingested a single molecule of amphetamines without a prescription since 1971 was, technically speaking, breaking the rules. And if they were doing it with the intent of playing better, they were cheating.
When it comes to morality, the only thing that matters is intent. When Hall of Fame voters penalize players from the (so-called) Steroid Era while giving a free pass to every player who ever cheated with amphetamines, they’re drawing a line that—and yes, I’m going to say this once more—is intellectually indefensible.
As I have been for some time now, I’m waiting for someone in the BBWAA to draw the Hall of Fame-relevant disctinction between those two acts.
Beautifully laid out by Rob. So, is cheating a question of improving performance, or is it a question of cheating with an intent to improve performance? Do you have to rob a bank, or can you simply walk in with a gun and be tackled by the security guard?
That’s why I like Rob’s article. It’s a very focused look at the question, rather than just “hey steroids”, and then have some non-productive discussion with no purpose or expectation of results.
Not by me though, but by Walt Davis in a clear, coherent and logical progression. He says what we’ve been thinking and saying, but haven’t articulated as well:
The Palmeiro and general post-testing argument:
The use of steroids is now a violation of baseball rules. However it is only repeated use of steroids which draws a lifetime ban that, under current HoF voting rules, would presumably make you ineligible for the HoF. Palmeiro’s presence on the ballot makes it clear that he and others who test positive for steroids are eligible.
Now that it is against the rules, it is clearly “cheating.” So are the spitball, corked bats, etc. Now engaging in those activities is more likely to earn you something like a 5-game suspension not a 50-game suspension so clearly the use of steroids is a much worse form of cheating than those. It is also clear that it is not as serious a rule violation as gambling or throwing a game.
It is an act with a clear penalty and it doesn’t negate the achievements of the player. This is not necessarily inconsistent with other sports—records are not necessarily expunged (some have been in track I believe) but, more importantly, there is, for example, no rule preventing a runner from winning a future Olympic gold medal. Football writers have voted former steroid users MVP and, one would guess, will enshrine known steroid users (i.e. guys who tested positive after it was against the rules) in their HoF if they have not done so already.
Failing a steroid test could of course be considered under the HoF “integrity” and “character” clauses. This is also true of “convicted” spitballers, ball-scuffers, bat-corkers, umpire-spitters and guys who get into fights on the field. Again, given the more severe penalty, it is clearly a greater violation of the “spirit of the game.” As to “general character”, it presumably should not be considered as black a mark as, say, spousal abuse or, I would argue, drunk driving or, others might argue, recreational drug use.
By putting rules in place, MLB has provided us with at least some mechanism to judge the impact that steroid use should have on the evaluation of someone’s career. Palmeiro has a serious violation of the rules on his record but not a career-altering one. His team was not required to forfeit games prior to his positive test, his statistics are not altered, his career is not ended. With testing in place, future voters have little choice but to assume players are clean before and after any single positive test (give or take the time between the previous test and the positive one). If a player is not caught and suspended for use, the player has not violated any rule.
Let it be noted that, by putting rules in place, MLB has made it clear that while the use of amphetamines and other drugs is not as serious a violation of the rules as the use of anabolic steroids, it is a serious violation of the rules. Things are a bit muddier here since the first violation only brings a warning (suggesting it’s even less important than throwing at a batter after being warned) but the 2nd brings a 25-game suspension (if my memory is correct). Given there are known amphetamine users in the HoF, this certainly opens the door to any pre-testing steroid users even if the voters want to apply new ethical standards to pre-test players.
Some writers have said they’d like the HoF to provide guidance on how to handle the steroid issue. It’s not clear to me what they are waiting for—Palmeiro violated MLB’s steroid policy and Palmeiro is on the ballot. McGwire has confessed and he is on the ballot. It is clear that steroid use, in and of itself, is not disqualifying anymore than being suspended for a week for using a corked bat is. Meanwhile the violation of such a serious rule is clearly some mark against the player’s integrity and the HoF has decided to leave it up to the voters to decide if it is severe enough to warrant exclusion just as they always have. It would be a gargantuan stretch to think that wants to exclude players based on mere suspicion of steroid use.
The lawyers and philosophers in the crowd can put this all more formally and convincingly probably but if you want the pithy equivalent of “innocent until proven guilty” it is “Palmeiro served his time.”
I am assuming that Palmeiro holds the record for most suspended games in a career but, in theory, I see no reason why, say, a pitcher who had received 50 games worth of suspensions for foreign substances, emery boards, etc. should receive any larger HoF voting penalty than Palmeiro.
So, Ray, why do you require evidence he didn’t use intentionally? He violated a baseball rule and he was appropriately punished. MLB has made it clear that this violation doesn’t invalidate any of his on-field accomplishments.
Do you plan to apply this to all players who test positive in the future? If so, why? If a superstar player were to test clean for 5 years, have a single violation, then test clean for another 15 years, would he not receive your vote? Sosa was suspended 5 or so games for using a corked bat, does he receive 5 black marks compared to Palmeiro’s 50? Or is any suspension, regardless of length, disqualifying (under the integrity and character clauses presumably)? Mike Cameron’s not a serious HoF candidate but he had a 25-game suspension for greenies, is he off your list as well barring evidence he didn’t knowingly use them? Heck, I don’t even know if McGwire (post-confession) is on your ballot.
For those about to accuse me of trying to have my cake and eat it too ... well, yeah. That’s the way it works sometimes. There was no rule for McGwire to violate. There was a rule for Palmeiro to violate but, while clearly a violation that carries a severe penalty, it isn’t overly severe, MLB makes it clear that violators are welcome to return to the game, without prejudice, after they have served their suspension and the HoF has made it clear that Palmeiro is still eligible.
Rafael Palmeiro is a player suspended 50 games for violating baseball rules, nothing more, nothing less. He is not, by baseball’s own standards, unworthy of playing the game nor, similar to McGwire, banned from future participation in organized baseball. He is not, by the HoF’s standards, unworthy of being on the ballot.
For voters, the question is whether 50 games worth of suspension is sufficient evidence of a lack of integrity or character as to outweigh a player’s on-field accomplishments.
Dan Rather reports:
MLB teams have known for years about this drug use by Dominican teenagers. You’d have to be a bit impressionable, or foolish, as a pro scout to believe that so many 17-year-olds from a country that small could perform the same athletic feats as Americans in their 20s.
“The buscones arranged for this to happen,’’ Rather said of the drug use. “The Dominican government has a lot to answer for...but MLB’s responsibility is that they have been big enablers.’’
WADA says:
According to WADA president John Fahey, the agency’s criteria for banning a substance
(1) is whether it gives a competitive edge,
(2) is potentially injurious to health and
(3) is against the spirit of sport.
In Fahey’s opinion, caffeine failed all three of those tests and he told The Age newspaper he intends to ask the agency’s medical committee to consider a new ban when it meets in September.
That’s a good enough criteria to judge something. The key point is #2: where to draw that line. Corrective eye surgery, for example, could cause your eyes to be worse, even make you go blind I presume. What is the “injurious to health” rate there? If it’s say 5%, then that’s one potential line.
I look at things like what the Special Olympians use, who get those cool replacement legs. It satisfies criteria 1, it may fail criteria 3 (I don’t think it does), but it definitely fails criteria 2. So, bionic parts of your body (that is, it’s not an extra limb, but a replacement limb) should allow those human beings to be recognized.
I like it. I like the rules, it gives a framework for discussion and debate, rather than the loose-knit discussions where everyone is shooting their pistols without any idea what the target is.
I saw the headline from a Primer-linked article, and that’s what I thought.
For those who want to discuss it, or avoid it, this thread will help you.
Step right up, Edison Volquez. It’s your turn.
If you were a football player, not only would no one care, but one year from now, no one will even remember you did it. A non-story that the mainstream media will feed to people as a story.
Feb 11 04:03
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential
Feb 11 04:02
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data? And what about outliers?
Feb 11 02:12
Performance through the ages
Feb 11 02:10
Dwight Evans
Feb 10 23:01
For Your Soul
Feb 10 21:07
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter
Feb 10 18:32
Moneyball at Villanova
Feb 10 17:00
Psst… wanna intern in Canada?
Feb 10 15:01
New PECOTA
Feb 10 14:28
Win expectancy charts used in football… in 1983!
THREADS
February 10, 2012
Jose Molina
February 10, 2012
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data? And what about outliers?
February 10, 2012
Performance through the ages
February 10, 2012
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter
February 10, 2012
Win expectancy charts used in football… in 1983!
February 10, 2012
Dwight Evans
February 09, 2012
Psst… wanna intern in Canada?
February 08, 2012
Moneyball at Villanova
February 08, 2012
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential
February 08, 2012
New PECOTA
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 320 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date