Screen Germ, Lo

To some Sox fans, we imagine.

72 comments… add one
  • Big Papi talks about steroids
    On Bud Selig: “He’s just making things worse.”
    on Bonds: “He deserves respect.”
    on himself: “I don’t know if I drank something in my youth, not knowing it.”
    Big Papi just admitted to unknowingly taking steroids…as much as Bonds admitted it.

    John_Yf May 8, 2007, 9:31 am
  • This post is entirely off-topic, John, but at the very least you could have posted the whole quote from Papi re: Steroids, as it changes the tone of what Papi said. You do him a disservice by clipping it. Here’s the full quote from the article:
    “I tell you, I don’t know too much about steroids, but I started listening about steroids when they started to bring that [stuff] up, and I started realizing and getting to know a little bit about it,” Ortiz told the Herald. “You’ve got to be careful. … I used to buy a protein shake in my country. I don’t do that any more because they don’t have the approval for that here, so I know that, so I’m off of buying things at the GNC back in the Dominican. But it can happen anytime, it can happen. I don’t know. I don’t know if I drank something in my youth, not knowing it.”

    SF May 8, 2007, 9:38 am
  • Well, I didn’t accuse Ortiz of taking Steriods, I’m just summarize what article says. I didn’t wrote it.

    John_Yf May 8, 2007, 9:46 am
  • John, why don’t you keep a lid on it budddy, you have a known HGH user on your team, which I’m certain he’s still doing since they don’t test for it, and up until last year you had two TOP performers using PEDs.
    You really want to go there?

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 10:00 am
  • Looks like Clemens is on a Doritos regimen, not HGH… Rogggger’s looking a little thick around the middle, even by his wide-boy standards:
    Some photos of his face at the press conference also made him look awfully weary. (Hung over?)

    Hudson May 8, 2007, 10:04 am
  • Lockland you are deluding your self if you think only players on the yankees have used or are still using PEDs. I can assure you that members of the sox and 28 other teams have current and former users. Trying to take the moral high ground on this issue is a worthless pursuit.

    sam YF May 8, 2007, 10:23 am
  • Trying to take the moral high ground on this issue is a worthless pursuit.
    I agree completely.

    Brad May 8, 2007, 11:01 am
  • Someone want to explain Varitek’s three year power surge then sudden drop?
    Cause it’s never been properly explained.
    Highest of his career at age 31? Then two more power seasons?
    Then a sudden drop in 2006? What happened in 2006? (Searching memory…)
    Anyone have a better explanation?

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 11:14 am
  • “Well, I didn’t accuse Ortiz of taking Steriods, I’m just summarize what article says. I didn’t wrote it.”
    You have no ability to draw logical conclusions from the evidence at hand. (You also can’t write coherently.) Within the context of the Bonds controversy, Ortiz said that he doesn’t know if a long time ago he ever inadvertently ingested PED’s from drinking an unapproved protein shake. You draw from this that Ortiz is admitting to taking steroids.
    Joe Schmoe: “I don’t know if I’ve ever accidentally eaten rat droppings in my Taco Bell take-out.”
    You: “Joe just admitted that he eats shit for breakfast! Don’t look at me! HE’S the one who said it!”
    “Someone want to explain Varitek’s three year power surge then sudden drop?
    Cause it’s never been properly explained.”
    Yeah, I’m pretty sure A-Rod started taking tons of HGH and steriods before the 2007 season. It’s the only explanation. He was really scuffling before this season. There’s no other explanation.

    maxwell horse May 8, 2007, 11:24 am
  • That was sarcasm, by the way.

    maxwell horse May 8, 2007, 11:27 am
  • speculating on who took PEDs is pointless and counterproductive. We will never know how many players took them and when they did so. There are many ways to explain spikes and drops in numbers. There are certainly players who we suspect, others we know, and a large majority who we have no idea took PEDs. Where does a debate about this subject lead? Nowhere….

    sam YF May 8, 2007, 11:33 am
  • Back to topic: here’s a more accurate anagram:

    rk May 8, 2007, 11:33 am
  • I’d explain it to you, but I’m respecting the code.

    Brad May 8, 2007, 11:33 am
  • These are also good:
    (Especially if you read “LEG” to be questionable, 44 year old, knees)

    rk May 8, 2007, 11:41 am
  • May 7 Bryan Hoch, of, reports New York Yankees SP Philip Hughes (hamstring) threw on flat ground Sunday, May 6. The team also learned that Hughes’ injury might not be as serious as the MRI taken Saturday, May 5, suggested.

    Lar May 8, 2007, 12:07 pm
  • I wasn’t taking the moral high ground, or saying only Yankees took PEDs, I was simply pointing out to John that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 12:11 pm
  • My point is that we all live in glass houses so nobody should throw stones including SFs.

    sam YF May 8, 2007, 12:43 pm
  • Or that we should all throw stones, since we might as well! =)
    It just seemed a little overreaction on an article.. you don’t have to be defensive all the time!

    Lar May 8, 2007, 12:57 pm
  • Some glass is thinner and more fragile than others, Sam.
    Regardless, I will never allow a YF to throw around PED accusations, fair or not, your players have revoked that privilege.

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 1:04 pm
  • If ever there’s a clear example on the Sox, it’s Varitek. Just because he hasn’t admitted it doesn’t mean he’s not fair game.
    Unless someone has a better explanation for his late peak, and very, very sudden decline?

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 1:15 pm
    “Someone want to explain Varitek’s three year power surge then sudden drop?”
    Of course, his previous career high, at age 27, was only five less than his amount at age 31. It’s like you said on another thread Jim – “Why bother with facts if they get in the way?”

    Tyrel SF May 8, 2007, 1:16 pm
  • Then you revoked the privilege to a fair discourse!
    I’m not defending this article, per se, but since when do we use circumstantial ad hominem to discredit everything?

    Lar May 8, 2007, 1:20 pm
  • Lar, I’m talking about John’s comment and only John’s comment. Not the troll or even the article.

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 1:23 pm
  • I’m just saying the YFs should have the right to PED accusations (well, probably way more evidence anyhow). I’m ignoring the Varitek stuff because that’s just silly to be taken seriously.
    I don’t know about John’s true intentions, but I took it as a joke. Mostly because a. I don’t believe Ortiz is on roids. b. If he is, he must be the stupidest person in the world (or maybe the most honest) to admit it in some silly interview.
    So maybe I don’t get the need to be so defensive..

    Lar May 8, 2007, 1:30 pm
  • Tyrel –
    Player development shows that a typical player’s peak is around 27. It should nomrally all be downwhill from there.
    And for Varitek it was, right until an “amazing” resurgence at age 31. His SLG jumped 120 points from the year before. And stayed up there right until it dropped 90 points in 2006.
    Yoooouurr SSSSooooXXX Captain!

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 1:46 pm
  • …you’re wrong as usual jim. 27 is the beginning of a player’s peak years; 28-32 are regarded as the height of a player’s career. Somewhere between 32 and 34 is when most begin their decline. Not really worth arguing with you about Varitek since you appear to think of him roughly the same way I think of you, but at least get your stat generalizations right. If it were all downhill after 27, practically your entire team would be either falling apart or, by your logic, on steroids.
    And about Ortiz…most ‘real’ steroids are injected or rubbed anyway. The Clear and The Cream are creams, and HGH is injected. I can’t think of any true steroids–many substances currently banned aren’t steroids and weren’t illegal when Ortiz was a kid–that you eat or drink.

    desturbd1 May 8, 2007, 2:04 pm
  • Francis,
    Does a mountain peak have a range?
    Peak = apex = 27. The fall off may be steep or shallow but it’s there.
    Most especially for Varitek.
    Still, even with Francis trying to obscure the point (ha!), no one has explained Varitek’s steep improvement at age 31 and similarly steep decline in 2006.
    And 2006 of all seasons? Hmmm…what’s so special about that year…memory failing…why do I seem to recall something…

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 2:13 pm
  • 2006 — would that be the year that Varitek had both a glute injury for the majority of the season and a knee injury to finish it off?

    Kluv May 8, 2007, 2:21 pm
  • Jim, then again by your “logic,” we can all assume that Arod’s current success is due to steroids, because that’s what “conventional wisdom” dictates. I don’t believe he is 27 anymore either. In fact, this year’s success is in such stark contrast to his previous years with the Yankees, that we can “assume” he’s taking lots and LOTS of steroids.

    maxwell horse May 8, 2007, 2:21 pm
  • No. It’s not. The fall off is not typically there in any fashion until age 32-34. Mid-twenties are gradual improvement, 28-32 are rapid improvement with a peak somewhere in that range, and then some sort of decline follows. What don’t you understand? Decline does not begin after age 27, and on average, most players get a bit better.
    Varitek broke his elbow in 2001 after getting off to a start similar to his 2003 season. I would imagine that a broken elbow is somewhat tough for a player to recover from, what with the swinging a bat and everything.

    desturbd1 May 8, 2007, 2:22 pm
  • I’ve actually heard speculation that a lot of coaches in the DR would “sneak” their players PEDs to help their chances to get signed. Maybe it came up after Alex Sanchez was busted. I think Papi’s point was that he just has no idea.
    Jim, why the “XXX” and emphasis on “sex” in “SSSSoooXXX”? Is that a Freudian typo? In 2001, Tek was on track to have his best season, at age 29. He was just heating up when he broke his elbow laying out for a foul ball. At 30 he was rediscovering his swing while building his name as the most prepared catcher in baseball, and at 31 he really got in the groove for a couple years.
    The thing is, before the “steroid era,” these fluctuations were natural and expected. Slugging percentages would fluctuate by 60-100 points every year (see Munson, Thurman). It was the rare guy, the Hank Aaron, who would hit 30-40 every year. But in the 90s you started seeing a lot more guys hitting 30 every single year. THOSE are the guys who should suspected of using, the Palmieros, Bagwells, etc., not the guys who have good years followed by bad years followed by good years.

    Tyrel SF May 8, 2007, 2:36 pm
  • It’s clear, then, that Jorge Posada is STILL on steroids. He’s not 27. He’s not even 31! Clear steroid user.
    The Reuters news summary of the Herald article is about as instructive as John’s initial post — focusing entirely on the “might have unknowingly used steroids” angle without making it clear until later that he was just talking about drinking a shake in the DR when he was younger before he even knew fully about steroids that’s not approved in the US. Non-issue, frankly.

    Paul SF May 8, 2007, 2:41 pm
  • Since this thread was originally supposed to be about Roger Clemens, I’d be curious as to what Jim’s take is on that dude in regards to steroids. Surely, using all of Jim’s criteria (If you have a better year at 28 than you had at 27, then you’re on steroids–because all mountain peaks on earth end at an exact geometric acute point at the top, and humans are just like mountains), Clemens isn’t looking so clean in that regard. I’m not a Clemens expert, but I think he’s a lot older than Varitek.

    maxwell horse May 8, 2007, 2:43 pm
  • And who was that guy who implicated Rawge a last year?
    I wonder if Rawge will use some of his family days to testify before the Mitchell Commission?

    Tyrel SF May 8, 2007, 2:48 pm
  • It was Jason Grimsley. Clemens was apparently named in Grimsley’s affadavit.
    YF and I have avoided this kind of random PED speculation, and this thread’s discussion is exactly why. It’s a dead end. Nobody wins. Nobody’s team was/is immune. Random speculation is a waste of time, and in many cases, a poster’s dignity.

    SF May 8, 2007, 2:55 pm
  • Kluv – And that explains how this year’s almost exact performance? (though a little worse given normal decline :)
    Francis –
    Since you seem incapable of a Google search:
    Based on someone who knows math, that suggests the peak may even be a bit EARLIER as young as 26 yo for hitters.
    And 2001 doesn’t explain 2002.
    And that still doesn’t explain the steep, very steep, decline in 2006.
    Power surge in 2003 + steep decline in 2006 = Your Captain

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 2:58 pm
  • Well, in regards to Clemens & PED’s, YF raised an interesting question back in April when Mnookin pointed out that Roger has pretty much gotten a free pass from the media — even though he appeared in the “Grimsley affadavit”.
    But this back and forth accusation-tossing is getting pretty tiresome…

    Kluv May 8, 2007, 3:06 pm
  • Me, I abhor the fact that HGH isn’t being tested for. They should be taking blood samples every month from the players and storing them for twenty years on ice. That would put an end to all cheating.
    But Clemens, I just don’t see it. He’s a power pitcher with big fat legs. Always has been. And it’s not like his career has bounced all around either. He’s been consistently great, even in 2006.
    Meanwhile, Jorge has always been well-above average and remarkably consistent too. The only year of full-time outside his normal patterns was 2005. And he promptly got better (i.e., didn’t lose 90 point of SLG) in 2006.

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:07 pm
  • If half the mediots were talking about a real testing program instead of about head sizes and affadavits, the problem would be eliminated.
    You know, why should the media do actual advocacy? Nah.

    Anonymous May 8, 2007, 3:10 pm
  • That was me.

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:14 pm
  • YF handled that issue perfectly; he linked to Mnookin’s piece and hence the news item, and made no haphazard accusations about Clemens’ possible PED use, despite the ease with which he could have. As far as I am concerned, YF handled that dicey subject artfully. Mnookin obviously has a more aggressive attitude towards the item.
    It seems incredibly difficult for people not to carpet bomb accusations of PED use, and though I understand the urge we’d all be better off without people acting on those urges. When actual revelations hit the news, then it’s a different story, at least to me.

    SF May 8, 2007, 3:15 pm
  • Um…that’s a study of players who have 3-year careers. Says nothing about performance, it just kind of assumes that players with short careers, who are presumably playing during their best years, will tell us something about a player’s peak. It’s a census. Mathematically accurate but IMHO, fairly pointless. 3-year players are obviously following an entirely different career path then guys who break in at the same time and play for a decade or so. Hell, the fact that the peak range of that chart is 25-27 could just as easily be explained by the idea that that’s the age most clubs try to break in new players who look good in the minors and then flame out.
    That one suggests a peak between 27-28, with some decline beginning immediately thereafter. That said, it’s a statistically insignificant decline–less then .0025–until age 31, when it starts falling off a cliff.
    A broken elbow one year doesn’t explain a bad offensive season the next? You ever break an elbow? (I haven’t, but a friend of mine has; it took him well over a year for that arm to feel close to what it was before) I’m done now.

    desturbd1 May 8, 2007, 3:21 pm
  • I second that emotion, SF. (I actually submitted the reference to YF’s post before reading your reference to the Grimsley Affidavit.)
    For my tastes, the “[Insert Player’s Name] must be on PED’s because he had a [sharp production decline/production increase/enlarged head]” talk just ends up sounding like a bunch of rival kids going “Neener, neener, neener.”
    Which, it would seem, some people really enjoy.

    Kluv May 8, 2007, 3:25 pm
  • Except for Mnookin when it comes to looking at the clubhouse for the team he cheers.
    And me, I think the stats can tell us alot. Big, sustained bump, outside of normal patterns and a fall back to earth = big time warning bells.
    Luis Gonzalez – another perfect example (Not that I’m bitter about 2001 or anything).
    Meanwhile, I’m pissed most about the media. The whole congressional testimony was one big dog and pony story. And the testing now is a joke. The fans can’t do anything. It’s up to the media. And even when they run Q&A’s with the players, they’d rather ask about the scar on someone’s lip because steroids is an “old” story (See recent Q&A of Giambi with PeteAbe). And they already have their villian – Barry Bonds! Booooo!

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:26 pm
  • jim, your hatred of Tek is amazing. Does this have roots in him giving your binky a glove sandwich three years ago? Time to let it go. If you’re going to keep it up (which seems to be a foregone conclusion), why don’t you try coming up with something substantial instead of the baseless vitrol you continue to spew. If you want to see some numbers that actually indicate a serious drop in production due to the use of PEDs see Giambi, Jason- early 2005.

    Nate=Soxfan May 8, 2007, 3:30 pm
  • SF I agree completely. As I posted above, we have no idea who took what and when. There are for sure many players out there that nobody has any idea about who have been getting artificial help. IMO, the only guy in the YF/SF world who we can say with any actual certainty who took steroids is Jason Giambi since he has been the only one man enough to admit it (albeit in his own legalese way) and apologize. SFs and YFs could go on for days tossing accusations around with little or no benefit from the conversation. For example Ill see your Posada took steroids and raise you a Nixon and a Schilling on HGH. I mean this is just silly.

    sam YF May 8, 2007, 3:30 pm
  • Francis –
    You have to read to comprehend. That’s a MORE controlled version of the same story to limit the variability. Like I said, dude knows math. And like I said, it’s a steady drop-off after a peak.
    And there – you just said it: “until age 31, when it starts falling off a cliff”
    So, Varitek has the best season of his career when it’s typical for every other play to fall off a cliff? And he sustains that performance for another 2 years, until the year testing begins?
    THEN his performance drops off a cliff?
    Thanks for proving my point. I knew I could count on you afterall!

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:31 pm
  • To get us back on the original topic, shouldn’t we be including his first name (William) in the anagram?
    “Ow! Glen Miller’s a crime!”

    Kluv May 8, 2007, 3:35 pm
  • Ah, Nate with the ad hominen!
    Please explain what I’ve been asking: How does a player show their best SLG ever at age 31 sustain it for two years then drop off a cliff in 2006?
    Francis tried, and ended up proving my point.
    Meanwhile, Sam, nothing in the careers of Posada, Nixon, or Schilling suggest PEDs. They’ve been remarkable consistent. That to me is a great marker of a clean player.
    By contrast, look at Giambi. He went from being pretty good to spectacular back to pretty good. And that uptick in performance didn’t occur during his peak. I feel comfortable calling him a cheater. Shef, not so much.

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:39 pm
  • Great, d1- why’d you have to go and prove jim’s point?
    Wait- what was his point? Oh yeah- because some “dude knows math” Tek did steroids, HGH, and possibly killed Kennedy.
    Kudos, jim.

    Nate=Soxfan May 8, 2007, 3:40 pm
  • remember when giambi got that japaneese flu? and then later on in the year it became an eyesite problem. you can choose either of these excuses for varitek if it makes you happy. you bought them then, why wouldn’t you buy them now?

    sf rod May 8, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • Nate –
    What so difficult about this question: How does a player show their best SLG ever at age 31, sustain it for two years, then drop off a cliff in 2006 when testing begins?
    Too much to contemplate?

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:45 pm
  • SF –
    Varitek is never getting “better”. His true playing self has been revealed. As has Giambi. One is a 85 OPS+. The other is a 150 OPS+.

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:46 pm
  • People ask why destroy The Great Myth of Jason Varitek?
    1) He’s was always overrated.
    2) He was an obvious cheater
    3) Named Captain of the Red Sox
    Three good reasons for me!

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:50 pm
  • Jim, why are you addressing a comment to me about Varitek?

    SF May 8, 2007, 3:52 pm
  • My bad, Mr. SF. That was directed at Mr. SF Rod. I’m not sure if it’s Rod. Maybe his name is actually Nancy?

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 3:55 pm
  • cute jimmy. if my name were nancy, i’d be the first girl you’ve spoken to without having to enter your credit card first.

    sf rod May 8, 2007, 4:01 pm
  • These conversations about Varitek amuse me to no end. I smile the whole way through them.

    Paul SF May 8, 2007, 4:03 pm
  • That’s too bad Paul. I’d figure you’d be “angry,” as always mentioned, because obviously there is no other emotion for a Sox fan!

    Scott SF May 8, 2007, 4:06 pm
  • Projecting Rod? My hot little SF wife takes care of me just fine, thanks.
    And I’m happy for Paul. He’s exchanging laughter for anger. Good start, champ!

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 4:07 pm
  • How does a player show their best SLG ever at age 31, sustain it for two years, then drop off a cliff in 2006 when testing begins?
    Boston Globe- April 18, 2006:
    When Jason Varitek grounded a ball to second baseman Jose Lopez in the second inning yesterday and Lopez bobbled it, Varitek had a chance to beat it out. But one look at the Sox catcher — limping up the line — indicated he not only would be out on the play but could be out for some time. Not the case, Varitek said. ”Just something I’ve had to battle for the last couple of months,” he said. ”Stiffened up on me [Sunday].” The issue: He’s got a bad gluteus muscle, or, as a reporter pointed out, a pain in the butt.
    August 3- undergoes arthroscopic knee surgery, out until September 3.
    Upon his (much too early) return, Ks in 24 of his final 54 ABs.
    Yeah- real smart juding a guy who battled injuries all year, played in the fewest number of games he had in five years, and had a horrendous final month of the season. But that can’t have anything to do with his #s. Gotta be roids. Only because jim said so, though.

    Nate=Soxfan May 8, 2007, 4:12 pm
  • How’s that explain this year, Nate? Or every year before 2003?
    His best seasons were age 31-33, typically when most players are “falling off a cliff”?
    And he only starts falling off a cliff when testing begins?
    Seems like the PED’s worked very well for him! They not only made him stronger, but healthier too!

    jim - YF May 8, 2007, 4:17 pm
  • Jim, serious question, are you like this in real life? It’s amazing, I mean, you’re like the worst person I know and I don’t even know you.
    Do you see anyone else behaving here the way you do? I mean, besides when it’s directed at you.
    Notice how, for the most part, we are all nice to each other, listen to each other and have actual discussions?
    Seriously, just go to NYYFans or LoHud, you will be loved in both those places.

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 4:17 pm
  • jim- I answered your ignorant question with facts. I guess you didn’t like the answer or are too dense to process it.
    Go away.

    Nate=Soxfan May 8, 2007, 4:28 pm
  • cir·cum·stan·tial (sûr’kəm-stăn’shəl)
    – “Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not – it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.”
    (And, guys, you should pay particular attention to Jim’s quote from yesterday’s ‘YFSF Code of Conduct’: “I respond to the responses.”)

    Kluv May 8, 2007, 4:32 pm
  • …his 2003 slg was .02 higher then his 1999 and his 2001. In other words, were it not for the 2001 broken elbow, Varitek would have most likely put up roughly the same SLG for five of six seasons. Meaning it’s easy to argue that his peak came at age 27 in 1999, 2000 was a fluke, 2001 started the same way as 99 but was shortened by an elbow injury, in 2002 he was in recovery, and he finally back to normal 2003-2005.
    Way more reasonable then some entirely baseless PED accusation that completely ignores 1999 and the 2001 injury, as well as the offensive inconsistancies typical of the catching position. And the fact that nobody with any credibiltiy has ever had anything bad to say about Varitek. Tek’s 2000 could have easily been something similar to what you insist 2005 was for Posada–a hiccup. Now I’m REALLY done…heh.

    desturbd1 May 8, 2007, 4:36 pm
  • Enough, guys.
    Jim, act like an adult and shut up.
    SFs, stop taking his bait.

    Paul SF May 8, 2007, 4:40 pm
  • Jim, you moron, ad hominen is a personal attack in an attempt to discredit that person in order to shift an argument. That’s not what I’m doing, I don’t give a crap about your argument, not trying to win anything here, just pointing out how much you suck and really don’t belong here.

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 4:42 pm
  • Sorry Paul, didn’t see you post, fine by me, I’m done, I realize it’s pointless.

    LocklandSF May 8, 2007, 4:43 pm
  • seemen clogrr

    sf rod May 8, 2007, 4:48 pm
  • Much better.
    Whichever of our esteemed blog moderators (blogerators?) it was- thank you for taking out the trash.

    Nate=Soxfan May 8, 2007, 6:09 pm
  • seriously…no one with:

    c lo May 8, 2007, 7:15 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.