Olbermann's Mouth

G. Keenan · Post by **G. Keenan** » March 13 07, 5:44 pm

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:Albert probably just cut the baby seals out of his diet. Tasty buggers, but bad for you.

He replaced them with the snowy egret. Much leaner meat.

vinsanity · Post by **vinsanity** » March 13 07, 5:49 pm

In related news...Alfonso Soriano is 5% softer around the mid-section and David Ortiz is 5% less clutchier.

Suicide_Squeeze · Post by **Suicide_Squeeze** » March 13 07, 6:37 pm

Is Ramirez 5% less Manny-ish?

G. Keenan · Post by **G. Keenan** » March 13 07, 6:46 pm

Suicide_Squeeze wrote:Is Ramirez 5% less Manny-ish?

No. Manny is still being Manny.

Post by **Radbird** » March 13 07, 7:24 pm

G. Keenan wrote:
Suicide_Squeeze wrote:Is Ramirez 5% less Manny-ish?
No. Manny is still being Manny.

And he could not be more Manny. He's 100% Manny baby.

ghostrunner · Post by **ghostrunner** » March 13 07, 8:57 pm

skmsw wrote:I actually love Olberman. But I didn't know about his AP comments until this thread.

[rant] I'll of course also take a moment to say, I do not believe that HGH does anything to help baseball skills (or even work at all, unless you are prebuescent or have some kind of growth deficiency). [/rant]

Steve,

Can you explain your thinking on this?

I'm not bothered by the steroid/HGH stuff in general, but it seems hard to imagine that greater mass wouldn't assist in hitting a ball farther. That would be basic physics, wouldn't it? I imagine speed could be sacrificed if you got so big you couldn't move freely, but I'd think more muscle would mean more speed and more force. If steroids adversely affected speed, I can't imagine runners wanting any part of it.

Certainly neither HGH or steroids increases skill, but they could help people who know how to hit make the ball go farther when they do hit it. What stands out to me is the advanced age of people like Bonds and McGwire when they had their big home run seasons. How would you account for that?

Radio_Bugtussle · Post by **Radio_Bugtussle** » March 14 07, 5:46 am

Olberman is the greatest living proof of the Peter Principle in the media in 25 years.

Nothing wrong with Olberman that a strategically located six inch length of duct tape wouldn't fix--at least temporarily.

Boneyard · Post by **Boneyard** » March 14 07, 8:52 am

Sorry... I was away from my computer last night, so I missed out on describing what I heard in more detail.

DP teased the comment by saying that Albert was "less of a man than what we had thought." Which is what caught my attention. In fairness to KO, he went out of way to not suggest that Albert or "any other major league player" was using any enhancers. He does noticed he looked smaller, and DP mention how Pudge looked a few years ago. The subject was dropped and they moved on.

I like DP & KO as a team. I may not always agree, but they are fun to argue with. (so was Dibbs). My point though was not to take a shot at KO, but that some other idiot is probably researching this right now because Albert is the best player in the game.

On the HGH/steriod issue being discussed: They are performance enhancers, and you are being short sighted if you think they are not. HGH or whatever will not may your swing or hand-eye reaction better. MLB players are in the league because they already have these abilities that make them better than us Saturday softball players. Power is generated from torque in a player's swing. The stronger, while maintaining flexibility, one is the more power that will be generated. Hence the ball goes further. An average player becomes a good player, good to superstar, and superstar to mythic status.

Phyrkrakr · Post by **Phyrkrakr** » March 14 07, 10:20 am

Boneyard wrote: MLB players are in the league because they already have these abilities that make them better than us Saturday softball players.

Hey, speak for yourself. I'm sure my softball team could beat anybody's starting nine...

skmsw · Post by **skmsw** » March 14 07, 11:04 am

Ghost wrote:Can you explain your thinking on this?

I'm not bothered by the steroid/HGH stuff in general, but it seems hard to imagine that greater mass wouldn't assist in hitting a ball farther.

I'd be glad to. In fact, I think you and I have had at least parts of this conversation before.

1. As far as HGH goes, it has to be differentiated from steroids. I'm not sure anyone has even shown that HGH actually does anything to build muscle mass at all, like I said unless you are prepubescent, or unless you have some kind of homone deficiency. The fact that people will try it, the fact that people attempt to use it that way, does not make it performance-enhancing, and frankly I am not convinced. And if people are using HGH as a topical application ("cream" or "clear") it is doing nothing; if they are taking it orally it is doing nothing. HGH is a protein that will simply be digested if it reaches the stomach, it will not enter the body through the skin.

2. Empirically, there have been studies done on the performance of players pre-dirty test and post-return. There is not a significant change in their performance. I'm not suggesting that the studies are conclusive or perfect, but what we do have is not a ringing endorsement for the effectiveness of steroids as performance enhancers in baseball. Some stuff I've seen, I can't share, but see for instance Baseball Between the Numbers by BBP.

3. Chemically, steroids do build bulk, so I see some merits to at least some of your comments above about greater mass. But steroids build "slow-twitch" muscle, which for the most part is not useful in baseball. Yes, you're heavier, and yes you can lift or carry more -- but no, it's not been shown to generate more batspeed.

I'm not suggesting that I'm right, and that everyone should agree with me; I'm just saying that in my opinion, based on what I know, steroids make you more muscular but do not result in much change in baseball performance; and that HGH does little to nothing to enhance performance of otherwise-healthy adult males. Certainly there are a lot of reasons to think that steroids = performance; I just happen to not agree so far.

What stands out to me is the advanced age of people like Bonds and McGwire when they had their big home run seasons. How would you account for that?

It could be coincidence -- overall fitness and nutrition and lifestyle conditions are meaning that 40 is the new 35 and 45 is the new 40, with or without steroids.

Or they could be outliers -- Mays had his best year at around age 34, if I recall (and given my thoughts above, 34 in 1965 was probably more like 37-39 now). Darrell Evans hit 40 homers at age 38 (after having topped 25 ONCE in the previous 12 years), and hit about 140 homers age 38+. Aaron's career high came at age 37 (which could, based on my reasoning above, be the equivalent of age 40-42). Obviously these examples are not as extreme as Bonds et al, but the point is, there have always been outliers.

Or it could be placebo, or correlation not equalling causality -- that is, taking the steroids, they also ramped up their overall strength, conditioning, fitness, and nutrition programs. Expecting the steroids to make the workouts better, they worked out much more intensively and with an enhanced level of dedication and attention. Maybe the intensive workouts just were what they were, and the steroids were the least important (or inert) part.

I dunno, just speculating. I think we read too much into some of the surface-level details and anecdotal elements of these cases. Again, just my opinion though -- I certainly understand WHY you think what you think, and I can't say you're wrong. I just think something else.

boneyard wrote:On the HGH/steriod issue being discussed: They are performance enhancers, and you are being short sighted if you think they are not. HGH or whatever will not may your swing or hand-eye reaction better. MLB players are in the league because they already have these abilities that make them better than us Saturday softball players. Power is generated from torque in a player's swing. The stronger, while maintaining flexibility, one is the more power that will be generated. Hence the ball goes further. An average player becomes a good player, good to superstar, and superstar to mythic status.

This is certainly an excellent common-sense assessment of steroids, and a very well-said summary of the conventional wisdom. However, there is little evidence that supports any of it. We do not know that any of the above is true. I do not dispute your opinion -- but I do not happen to share it.

Maybe that sounds silly -- like I'm looking for evidence of something obvious. Could be. But the fact is, while those assumptions all look spot-on, correlation does not equal causality, common sense is not always correct, and conventional wisdom does not always reflect the facts as well as it reflects stories we tell ourselves about what we see (and what we think we see).

To repeat (and summarize), I'm NOT saying I'm right and anyone else is wrong. Anyone who so chooses is free to think that their observations suggest that steroids and/or HGH cause improved baseball performance. I'm just saying that based on what I have seen, in my opinion I do not believe that steroids improve baseball performance, and I do not believe that HGH has any notable positive effect on otherwise-healthy adult males.