2014 Baseball HOF Class: A new system, a non-moral standard devised

Greg Maddux: Dealing from HOF Strength

 My Current 2014 HOF Class Selections and Reasons:

Greg Maddux - wins aside, he compiled a healthy WAR in his career. Won on great teams, and the Cubs. 1st ballot is a no brainer.
Tom Glavine - same token on wins (305-203). He benefited from a wider strike zone and used it to great advantage. Teammates should go in together - John Smoltz will join soon enough.

(Edit and Note: Baseball Reference has Tom at 74.0 WAR using Runs Allowed method; Fangraphs (based off FIP, which is weighted on underlying metrics such as Ks, BB, HRs) has him at 64.3 WAR. At Fangraphs, Tom had 12 seasons above 3 WAR, with low strikeouts per IP lifetime, and 3.95 FIP ERA, whereas his actual ERA was 3.54 and his lifetime BABIP was a very favorable .280. To me, if you can stick around to pitch 14 years of 200+ IP, that is Hall worthy in the teeth of the prevalent offensive boom. He was able to parlay all that from a pitching platform of not getting all those juicy Ks while keeping it in the ball in the park. Craftiness in this case, deserves such a reward.)

Roger Clemens - controversial now, but no doubt, the most dominating guy on the bump in either league for many seasons.
Mike Mussina - a very, very consistent guy. Pitched solely out of the AL East, and amassed both a substantial standard record (270-153) and quality sabermetrics record (82.7 WAR at Baseball Reference). 
Curt Shilling - as outspoken against guys like Clemens, he got it done when it mattered. A money pitcher, who now has, less money (due to a bad business investment.)
Barry Bonds - Best hitter of his generation. Not really even that close. (See below.) Never suspended for PEDs, even while he was playing under close monitoring. His legacy as a bad guy (and interview) pretty much relegates him to being on the outside looking in. Pete Rose is his much lighter-hitting companion.
Larry Walker - Colorado was the best thing for his numbers. That said, he was a damn good hitter. Very good RF for a number of seasons, and it is not his fault, anymore than it was Ott's or Ruth's, that he destroyed his home haven.
Mike Piazza - He compiled a .300+ BA as a catcher for a career. Slugging, check. He was no gold glover, but he put on the tools of ignorance, and proved you can survive there for a decade plus.
Craig Biggio - Assured inclusion this time. 3000 hits. Those counting stats, his overall production, at 2B and versatility is his ticket to Cooperstown.
Edgar Martinez - As mostly a DH, he still played over 500 games as a 3B. Wore out pitchers with .418 OBP, routinely 40 doubles, 20 jacks, and 90 walks. Team construction in Seattle was not his fault; he could have been a 1B for, at least, 500 games if the Mariners didn't constantly add the David Seguis or John Oleruds of the world to the equation. But DH was available. And he was lethally suited for the role.

Edgar Martinez: A .418 OBP Machine.

From Fangraphs the Entire List Eligible for the Hall by Their WAR Calculation:

Name	WAR
Barry Bonds*	164.1
Roger Clemens*	139.9
Greg Maddux*	114.3
Curt Schilling*	83.5
Mike Mussina*	82.3
Jeff Bagwell	80.3
Frank Thomas	72.4
Rafael Palmeiro	70.0
Larry Walker*	69.0
Tim Raines	66.3
Mark McGwire	66.3
Edgar Martinez*	65.6
Craig Biggio*	65.3
Tom Glavine*	63.9
Alan Trammell	63.7
Mike Piazza*	63.6
Sammy Sosa	60.4
Fred McGriff	57.2
Jeff Kent	56.6
Luis Gonzalez	55.3
Jack Morris	52.7
Moises Alou	48.2
Kenny Rogers	47.2
Don Mattingly	40.7
Ray Durham	30.3
Lee Smith	27.6
Hideo Nomo	24.0
Paul Lo Duca	17.8
Richie Sexson	17.2
Sean Casey	16.1
Jacque Jones	13.1
Mike Timlin	13.1
J.T. Snow	12.6
Eric Gagne	11.9
Todd Jones	11.2
Armando Benitez	9.0

Baseball writers with their precious votes will not agree with me. I'm right on these selections, this year.

You may notice I selected the top 5 WAR producers, specifically Bonds and Clemens outpaced their compatriots in the game by a wide margin. But neither will get in because of the turmoil of the PED scandal. The sportswriters, who are voting, are like women who just got cheated on, or dumped for a hotter woman, or divorced from their once well-loved husband after he cheated on her with a less attractive option (this happens in real life, unlike Hollywood.) They duly want revenge; want groveling; and a measure of superiority over these selfish louts called baseball players.

Meanwhile, Maddux is the 'faithful' one; and he's the surest lock there is in this entire group.

After Mussina, there is gap. I jump down to Walker, Biggio, Martinez, Glavine, and Piazza. For good reasons: Walker is an lifetime RF, who distinguished himself enough with the glove and stuck at the position even in his twilight. Biggio played catcher, centerfield, left field and second base.  That's versatility, especially going from a catcher, to speed positions, and deserves its due. Piazza - catcher, primarily - was a hitting machine. Martinez, again, played the hot corner and raked. Glavine as discussed above.

So all of these are more worthy than Frank Thomas, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, Fred McGriff, Jeff Bagwell, or Don Mattingly. Or even the sentimental choice in Jack Morris (who I really do like - but well...Veteran's committee can do that).

Tim Raines looks the part until you realize he amassed more than half of his WAR in just 5 seasons (1983-1987). This is not problematic, per say, but look at his 1990s. Does that speak HOF? He might get in around 2017, or a bit later. He too has character issues from those white lines that nabbed guys like Lonnie Smith in the 1980s.

So, the remaining six I left out are all 1B/DH types. If you look up their numbers they have various ranges, but if I showed you a .298/.385/.520 lifetime statistical line, could you guess which one is above or below that? And by how much?

• Would you punish Palmeiro for not being a peak guy - but a consistent 35-110 guy with good OBP, but burdened with the 1st HOF career tied to a steroids suspension? 

• Or Frank Thomas for poor defense and solely a DH in his twilight? 
• Or McGwire for those 2-3 enormous seasons, but poor batting average/above average OBP, but lights out great slugging? 
• Or Fred McGriff's stats compiled in the pre-1993 era of the non-juiced baseball and steroids? Why not some love for the Crime Dog? 
• Or Jeff Bagwell who hit darn well in that old Houston Astrodome, walls moved in a touch (.303/.421/.536), but also got some benefits out of the Juice Box in Minute Maid...He deserves it by WAR alone. But again, I have problems with that sole measure - adjustments for positions made to that calculation aside.

So, I was not going to split hairs over this huge grouping, this year. I think 3-4 first sackers are worthy of inclusion someday, maybe in 2015-16. But those above I selected, to me, had the virtual locks by the positions played and stats achieved.

1B, again, is not the hardest position to play. It is the easiest. It is why all of these guys got huge numbers there. A 1B with a .500 plus slugging and a .375OBP is about All-star level/HOF worthy if we turned back the clock to the 1960s and 1970s. And these guys aside from McGriff and Mattingly benefited from the juiced ball theory I feel people constantly leave out of their equations. (And yes, Walker had plenty of juice in his ballpark - Colorado set the humidor conditions wrong, initially. Furthering the point of a 'juiced ball' era.)

But I had 10 votes, and took my logical 10 based on performances, position criteria, and differentiation from the pack. I could not immediately see clear reasons why any first sackers should be in over the rest of my selections, this year. And that speaks to the problem of the HOF.

The Non-Moral Argument to the Baseball HOF

Meanwhile, I think it's uniquely disturbing that people base their votes on baseball's HOF, which, in theory, is about best performers while in the game - statistically speaking - and not at all about the best human beings.

If we want a HOF of good characters, high integrity, blah, blah blah, THEN we should start anew and have a separate, and new HOF. I only say "blah, blah, blah," because what defines this quality is amorphic as to what era you judge it from.

• Is late 19th century baseball operating morality code than disallowed minorities, improperly hued, the baseline?
•  Is it the mid-1930s version of this code, upon creating this special grouping of HOF players, voted on by well-known sportswriters like Grantland Rice, who was fairly overt in his racism, the next hurdle?
• Is it the mid-20th century, that still didn't have too much problem with boozing, womanizing, or drugging, even if it were known (as media access often required a Gee Whiz Sports writing), our next leap?
• Is subtle cheating (spitters, frozen balls, amphetamines popping) from the 1960s-1970s ok to do, if they were 'good' guys according the new media guys, who picked out their favorites?
• Or is the 1990s tinkering with the ball, pumping iron, shrinking ballparks, growing paychecks and swelling, 'roided muscles the creme brulee we should talk from, if sportswriters wrote more positive pieces, and trumpeted the stats we wanted to hear about?
• Maybe we politically correct all discussions? Because we know what is right, now?

Roger: Dodger of PED suspensions

Whatever you do, it should be consistent and fair and simple. That is why the ONLY measure is what took place between the lines. Call me what you will, I am not going to parse out which guy is a better human being based on sportswriter's vendettas, or dislikes, or run-ins with ballplayers that are human and flawed.

Trying to elaborately devise a methodology to test all ballplayers retroactively - is he a steroid witch or not - without a 100% fool proof PED test in the present, seems oddly hopeless to my way of thinking about it.

If you technically were never caught with PEDs in your bloodstream by MLB, as Bonds NEVER was suspended, even after the first PED suspensions on April 3, 2005 came out, then how can you logically dismiss him now? Because he's an obstructionist of justice? Or a liar?

You can despise him all you like, but you should be consistent on your analysis, else you travel a slippery slope...it is the reason we have a messed up HOF, as it stands now. And those, that were overlooked until they died, i.e., Ron Santo (70.9 fWAR).

What happens on the field is one arena; and what happens in life outside the final out is quite another.

President Bill Clinton. most historians consider him a 1st-2nd tier president, if you look at that logically. But his womanizing does not make him as appealing as a human being, at least as he left the office, nearly impeached. Bill lied about his relationships... JFK. God rest, had the same issues with women, and is praised more out of respect more than accomplishment. FDR. Women issues to the very end, and still top 5-7 U.S. Presidents. And that list can go on, and on. Their accomplishments in their expert field should not be undermined by their flawed human relationships. Because, then, many of us need to reassess our very nature.

But this method is also how you can divorce one criteria from another. Because what a guy does to achieve success in one arena, should not be tied to what he does outside that arena, even if, it allegedly helps him to achieve undue results. Because until we know the direct amount of help, we are just surmising based on broad premises we barely understand the science and results behind.

Social Media & Personal Responsibility

I think too, ALL of us today, have tended to blend our lives into this social media petri dish for all to see online. It leads us to sometimes believe that our sports stars, even when they are eagerly willing (in tweeting), are really just like us, only richer, and therefore, available for our personal chidings. That their failings are fun, consumable pieces of information and thus require our witty commentaries. And so, these typically labeled 'special people' behave accordingly, lying, lashing out, and fighting back against being this pinata of social critique, often as not, without the entire story behind their lives as a sports icon/athlete. And their failings, very public in nature, as any athletes or entertainer will undoubtedly succumb to, someday, will outstrip or trump their glories. So they MUST super achieve constantly. No room for actual humanity in that equation. "We don't pay you for that," a fan now very aware of the billion dollar nature of the beast - often to the nickel - responds with derision.

This is wrong. 100% dead wrong.

Or, more recently, such athletes are held to some very high/higher moral standards because of their public nature. (Thank marketing for that - and those advertising revenues generated.) Again, this is totally wrong. That type of social norm (depending on where you live in this world applies differently, as not people see things like alike) applies really to an athlete's basic privilege of playing the game. They are not paid for moral decisions or likeability, or should not be. You don't pay a neurologist for tax advice. You don't pay a plumber for his translation skills if he was at the United Nations. And you don't pay athletes for their personal life choices - aside for those to which they agree to. (And even that was once heavily weighted to the ownership class, and their agents (GMs), in baseball's case. Instead of a fair contract, they got a lopsided deal until 1976. Since then, the owners have been looking to circumvent gains made; were guilty of collusion in the 1980s; and waited, patiently, to spring to action on the recent steroids scandal. Don't be fooled, they knew.)  

But to want to affect change or to stop this problem, those ownerships could have suspended these athletes "1-and-done" AND paid off their remaining contracts, foregoing any future playing benefits. (If the MLBPA would have collectively bargained away such rights. Player reps would have to convince their cohorts it is best for the game.) That measure would have rid any acquisition of "cheaters" - as we saw with recent healthy contracts for Marlon Byrd, Jhonny Peralta, and likely now, Nelson Cruz. Or you, the rabid fan, can stop going to all games involving any and all unethical louts that set a bad examples - and tell your kids all about the right way to be in the game. Until those examples are set, we should corral our MORAL HIGH HORSE. Because we are not making a very strong case to stop such behaviors by our own ethical hypocrisy. If anything, we undermine the premise "cheating is bad" by rewarding it later with high contracts (which too have their risks, but until you stop the practice, it does not show any ethical commitment.)

But I don't think that's the answer to the problem. It's draconian and arbitrary and even, the appeals will be lengthy, and the evidence has to reach the level of beyond a reasonable doubt. No, the question to answer rightly is HOF performance, solely.  It side steps the issue of enhancements. Because it is only about what it takes on the field...

The NEW Hall of Fame: A Trial by Stats

As suggested, the Hall of Fame is a different matter. Because moral judgments are inherently flawed, and biased by a personal value system. So we need a set criteria based on a thorough system.

You see, you will have selection bias, and select only information that matters to you, and discard the rest. I acknowledge I am guilty of it (see my choices), and even if you say you are not, then you are, actually. (You are human and flawed. And therefore, at some moment you have been biased solely by your limited amount of time to gather complete understanding of a person/or situation/or object. We make generalities to survive, else we would drive ourselves nuts. Therefore, you are biased.)

I suggest a new system based solely on numerical analysis. Adjusted to the standards of the offensive eras created within that system. Does not overvalue one era, or group, over any another. It will be sabermetric-based; detailed in its analysis; and ties directly to statistics and inflicts as little personal bias as any system can designed by such flawed humans. Therefore, if set correctly, only the highest level of achievement will be praised.

Of course, the current HOF has prestige. But old institutions outlast their usefulness, and new ones come along. This will happen in baseball like OBP replaced BA; xFIP has replaced ERA; WAR replaced any statistical variant that incorporated a hodge-podging of RBI, HR, SB, W, ERA, IP, or Runs. It inevitably comes. It will again.

We love asterisks, it seems. So, we will include a review of all that achieve the level of HOF, but is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a panel of baseball experts of enhancement by strictly artificial means, doping, cheating in baseball, amphetamines, if any of these or obviously artificial methods seems most prevalent to their statistical accumulation, outside the ways we know existed in all eras. (Read: not sportswriters, but historians and analysts that take each reported case up as if they were the U.S. Supreme Court. I'd personally say a rotating group of 9 fellows at this new HOF. Two-year review cycle - and therefore, an appeal by said HOF candidate, to present evidence to overturn a "guilty" opinion. In essence, a fair review where a player (or his legal representative) can produce contrary/mitigating evidence that refutes or colors a "guilty by enhancement" ruling.)

Even then, those of guilt will just be included with the dreaded asterisk. We don't apply this without logic to new HOF. New system, analyzing a far different game across seven scores of time (140 years) means I am not allowing the current/ongoing scandal to ruin this HALL at the start.

Managers and other worthy candidates will be under a different methodology, yet to be determined here.

That's my baseball HOF rant.

Bonds Indictment: Unforgivable...that's what you are...???

In a not so sudden turn of events, Barry Bonds has been indicted on 4 counts of perjury and 1 count of obstruction of justice charges.

As The NY Times reports:

"The charges stem from his Dec. 4, 2003, testimony to a federal grand
jury. He denied knowingly taking steroids...The United States attorney’s office
for the Northern District of California has been investigating whether Mr. Bonds
perjured himself in December 2003 when he told a grand jury in San Francisco
that he did not knowingly use performance enhancing drugs, despite drastic
changes to his physique and documents with his name on them from 2001 to 2003 showing drug schedules."

After these 4 years, and likely a huge amount of money spent on gathering evidence, chasing down witnesses and holding grand jury proceedings twice, they finally "got" him.

It really didn't surprise me that they waited this long. It was in some regards a better way to destroy the man, after setting the record, than say, stopping him from it before hand. For those that may disagree, it would have been seen as an isolated one case, one instance, of wrongdoing because it so happen that Bonds was about to break baseball's most hallowed record. By allowing him to break it (and not besmirching baseball mid-season), the prosecution now can proceed forward vigorously knowing out of sight, out of mind. And more importantly, how people feel about Bonds - dislike is only one word to describe - and how he will not be a sympathetic defendant.

One thing is for certain, Bonds will be considered for the "unforgivable list" of athletes that in some way made a dark stain on their chosen sport.

For myself, and not being a rooter for the Giants or in anyway enamored with Bonds, I do feel some sympathy for him. I know this was a planned attack on his singular achievement. So much so, that even our current President decided to make a statement via a spokesman about this, just an hour after it was handed down:

"The president is very disappointed to hear this," Bush spokesman Tony
Fratto said. "As this case is now in the criminal justice system, we will
refrain from any further specific comments about it. But clearly this is a sad
day for baseball."

Funny, this is coming from the former managing partner of the Texas Rangers (Bush) that traded for patient zero, Jose Canseco, whose usage of Performance Enhancers has been well known since the late 1980's. And the General Manager of Jose's initial team (A's): Sandy Alderson, now works for Bud Selig, the commissioner of baseball. Plenty of connections - and plenty of high ranking men in baseball that buried their head in the sand for years. (To the increase of revenues in the baseball from $2 billion in 1995 to $6 Billion this past year.)

Bonds is a victim of his own greed and place in history. He felt his pay was tied to hitting dingers into McCovey Cove - and it was - and his legacy as a baseball player was tied to his putting up outlandish numbers - and it probably was.

Do I feel Steroids alone did this for him? No, not exactly in the way people perceive it to be. Maybe it is more due to recovery from aches and pains, not gaining untold (and unmeasured, I might add) strength to crush that "bee ball" out of the yard.

It is my contention that the baseball, itself, was doctored up by 1994 to produce the ERA of extra base hits (doubles specifically), not just the jacks that sail mightily over the fence into new and improved dining areas of these ballyards.

IF Bonds is unforgivable...
Then baseball is unforgivable..TOO.



Other stories: ESPN report

756: Emails, Bonds and the Steroid Fallacy Part II

April 20, 2006: Email sent to Dr. Norm Fost, Professor at University of Wisconsin.

I want to thank you on your common sense approach on the issue of steroid use in the MLB.

Granted, many disagree whole-heartedly with your viewpoints on the usage, morality (or ethics) and dangers of taking them.

I am not a user, nor in anyway involved in professional sports. I am just a fan and one time player of the National Pasttime. Though I don't have any medical background or knowledge, I am of the jaded viewpoint that steroids isn't the primary reason the hallowed numbers of Aaron, Ruth, or name-your-slugger, have been breached (or shortly will be.)

The changes in numerical values of HRs (and Doubles) happened in 1993-94 and continue on to the present.

Offensive explosions have occurred before.

1) 1920-1921: MLB outlawed the spitball (except for 17 pitchers); changed SOP for preparation of baseball prior to games.

2) 1947-1951: HRs increased significant POST-WWII and continued onthroughout the 1950's.

3) 1987 season: From my young memory (I was 15), I can recall announcers suggesting a change in manufacturing happened in the Rawlings factory location.

Today) 18 new ballparks by only 3 architects; baseball specs & testing possibly changed; modification in ballbats, etc.

I've thought of certain tests (though I have only a sparse statistical background from my undergraduate education) that could test ahypothesis I have to the reasons this happened.

1) SPC (Historical numbers that show sudden changes in frequency ofoccurences)

2) 2 or 3-way ANOVA (Team by Team, League, Park Analysis by ERA)

3) Distribution testing I have done some (rough) analysis that could support an alternative viewpoint.

My ultimate question to you is: Do you think it is possible to prove what caused the offensive explosions?

Or is it something less obvious (to me)?

I believe athletes are better today, without question, due to training and enhancements, but it seems odd that more pitchers could not equally benefit from effective usage of steroids, if that was the driving force behind better performances. (Opinion)

I thank you (in advance) for any insights you might have.

April 21, 2006: Dr. Norm Fost response to my email...


You are exactly right and I urge to continue your research on this - i.e., the multiple variables that affect the numbers of home runs. You should consider publishing it in some form in "The American Pastime" the SABR journal (the Society of American Baseball Research), and/or in a popular magazine ( Sports Illustrated; Harper's; NY Times Magazine etc).

In addition to the factors you mention, the pitching mound is lower; the pitching talent is more diluted (though the increase in non-US players may actually have resulted in an increase in quality pitchers); the strategies are different. And there are factors that make it harder to hit home runs today, so Bonds et al should get more credit (e.g., the increased number of relief pitchers; the expansion of set-up men and hard-throwing closers; perhaps an increase in skilled pitchers due to the dramatic rise in international players).

I heard a reporter say that the number of home runs in Jacobs Field is 50% higher than Municipal Stadium (the Indians former home), but have been unable to track it down. I do not have enough expertise in statistics to answer your technical questions, but a friend here is a world class statistician and big sports fan so perhaps he would be interested in providing some guidance.

The bottom line is that home run records are not comparable for all these reasons, so selecting one of the numerous variables (steroids) as a great moral problem, requiring an asterisk, requires some justification that has never been provided.

If Bonds gets an asterisk, so should Ruth for the short right field fence the Yankees built for him. It would be fascinating just to list the total yardage from home plate to the left and right field foul polls in 2006 vs 1961 (Maris' year), and 1927. You are the first person I have heard from with some interest and ability to look at this in a scientific way. Keep at it, and keep in touch.

All best,
Norm

June 9, 2006 :Email to various people

http://www.deadspin.com has made a unique connection between Jason Grimsley and Chris Mihlfeld (personal trainer for Albert Pujols.)

Could HGH become the next linkage in the Steroid chain???

Why isn't anyone caring about Mr. Tony Larussa (Canseco, McGwire, Pujols(possibly)) or Dusty Baker (Sosa and Bonds)?

Certainly have to wonder about them - managers are SUPPOSE to know their players, aren't they? Nice to see our Virginia farm boys (FBI) are hard at it, trying to get Grimsley to wear a wire to garner information on BONDS. (No witchhunt...there.)

Funny - all of the offense changed in 1994 - the year of the strike. And HAS remained that way since. So, is it steroids or the baseball? Steroids can keep players at top form (for a longer duration), but if the bats are modified (thinner handles and high MPH at swing), balls are smoother and harder (higher coefficient of restitution and less break on pitcher), the strike zone (now monitored) has been reduced and changed, then just how much is the juice helping???

I think that warrants a study...

June 28,2006- Preliminary Analysis of Steroid Issue Email...sent to various Doctors in their respective fields...

As a follow up to my email sent to the both of you several weeks ago, I have compiled some initial findings which could be of interest to fans of baseball, amongst others.

First, I'll explain my rudimentary process to analysis. I felt that statistical process control could identify patterns of nonrandom variation in the game of baseball, specifically, the ratio of homeruns and doubles (measures of power) to at bats, year to year. As you are aware, in 1919-20, Babe Ruth's power outburst, Ray Chapman's unfortunate death in an accidental hits batsmen incident, changes in baseball usage in games and possibly internal modifications to the ball, contributed (as a group) to the huge increase in offense and the end of the 'dead ball' era.

By utilizing the years directly prior (1910-1919), I could 'set boundaries' at +/-3 s.d. of the average ratio of ((HR+2B)/AB) seen during that era, that further reflects the happy hitting that took place distinctly thereafter and continued on in a way never to be reversed. Applying the offensive similarities seen in THAT era, I applied that forward to the 'modern game.'

From 1950 to 1985, the ratio of (HRS plus Doubles per At bats) for full time players (more than 150 ABs) was fairly consistent, that is, lying within 3 standard deviations of the overall average of that time frame for both leagues.

The correlation between AL and NL ratios tracked well over 55 years (88.98%), and both league averages and standard deviations seen over 36 years in both leagues are nearly equal. With this seen, I created once again a control chart at for the time frame of 1950-2005. Internal patterns can be seen:

1) 1950-1962 - Offense above the average more consistently, shortly after the strike zone re-definition in 1950 MLB Rules resulted in power surge. The addition of more Black players in NL - and their immense talents - could also be an underlying causation in difference between the two leagues over that time.

2) 1963-1968 - The significant decrease in power production, included the worst year production wise in 1968. This is tied to the broad expansion of the strike zone in 1963.

3) 1976 - In the last year before Rawlings became the sole manufacturer of all MLB balls, offense dipped back to near 1968 levels.

4) 1987 - The best offensive year seen prior to the 1994, YET 1987 did not go above 3 s.d. from the average. (Prior to that, ZERO points fell outside +/-3 s.d.)

5) 1993-1994 - The first STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT alteration in the game is clearly visible. Since 1994, NO MLB season has fallen below the +3 s.d. line of the prior generations of hitters from 1950-1985. This to me points to a repeated distinct pattern: that the baseball or some other 'game related' modification has been at the heart of the offensive outburst, but not the usage of steroids.

Steroids have improved athletes - I will not argue against that - but it is HIGHLY IMPROBABLE in my humble opinion that all hitters (or say 50 to 60% of hitters) went to the 1993-1994 off season, a year before the cancellation of the World Series, and began a steroid regiment that increased their power statistics by that 3 standard deviations amount in just one year's time, and has continued EVERY YEAR to the 2006 season.

(In the past, pitchers have 'adjusted' to good hitters, eventually.)

Also, since the Steroids are now tested for, why hasn't offense reverted back to pre-1994 standards or dropped to 1987 levels?

The introduction of 19 new ballparks in the 1990's-2000's that undoubtedly utilized computer modeling of the specific weather patterns in regards to the flight of the baseball certainly could attribute to more power statistics. How much is a matter of science and player opinion. (HOK Sport has controlled much of the architecture of the new ballparks built.)

The research of physicist Dr. Adair, who works for MLB as a consultant, is included in the Adobe file. At least some of that research as it pertains to the theory and offense. My statistical analysis is included (in part) but is incomplete. A larger picture I am trying to draw on from numerous baseball sources and individual anecdotes is taking some side avenues that I did not include. But (some) of that is included for entertainment or the connection to the larger work up; most of the PDF file is excerpt of a much larger project.

So, the writing is slightly choppy without the envisioned connectors between relevant ideas.

I thank you for any thoughts you may have.

October 4, 2006 - Email to various doctors

Dear Doctors,

I want to thank you in advance for receiving my emails and hopefully being patient with my writing about a subject with limited ability.

In researching the effects of steroids on baseball performance, I have come to the conclusion that it is a subject that requires expertise in numerous fields to properly address the situation completely.

As I became more entrenched in the obtainment of data from various fields, physics, medical information, mass communications and statistical analysis, I became more of the opinion that the best way to attack the problem of addressing the steroid situation is to combine those particular knowledge bases to show the angles of the multi-faceted scenario.Things I believe greatly assist in this approach:

1. Physicist Dr. Adair and researchers Chambers, Page and Zaidins (2003) separate explanation of the Baseball Physics (2002) and Statistical Changes seen in ballparks such as Colorado's Coors Field,‘Home of the Humidor’, shows that testing of modifications to the baseball in one particular environment, and could reflect altering theball as far back as 1993-94. As noted, the offense in Colorado returned to more “normal levels” in 2006, after over a decade of unusually high statistics when a humidor adjusted the ball weights and temperaturebefore play.

2. Economist Dr. R.C. Fair recent research on Age Effects (2005) on player performance and the identification of outliers which possiblyare steroid-linked. Incorporating by accident this approach, I discovered that the 1918-24 and the 1990-96 Era of baseball share very similar increases in performances both as a subset of players, and as an entire league. This can be further seen in the graphical similarity of the analysis made and could further reflect the changes made to thebaseball in possibly both eras.

3. Medical Doctor William N. Taylor book, Macho Medicine (1991),includes an interesting study of the unique differences between weight-trained athletes and non-weight trained athletes with regard totheir improvements after steroid usage. On page 30-33 of his book he lays out a premise that reflects to some degree the misinformation that existed about steroids and their benefits in twenty plus studies of the subject then. And why the steroid subject was possibly approached inadequately by prior research when they did not take into account the usage of prior weight trainingby subjects.

(How this applies is that many, many pitchers never lift weights during a season and typically do very little weight training inupper body areas, thus the usage of steroids would not have the desired effect. Whereas, position players usage of regimented weight lifting programs, even mildly so during a season, would garner the desired enhancement effects. And pitchers have been caught more often than other players…but haven’t been performing any better.)

This is also seen in various reports discovered going back to the early 1990’s, when many baseball facilities began supporting and building huge gyms forplayer usage at the ballpark.

4. Utilizing a crude measure of Statistical Process Tracking that reflects the change in Power Ratio (Home Runs and Doubles to At-bats) over a course of time. This methodology I feel pinpoints the time of changes to the game and shows the mirror image to the first ‘PowerExplosion’ back in the Babe Ruth Era of baseball.

5. The Agenda Building as reflected by Dr. Bryan Denham’s research. As it points to the media and political arena where policies were made, and sometimes, in the case of MLB, not made in a timely manner. For reasons driven more by greed and less by any concern for the athletes.

With that said, my ability to synthesize the appropriate facts to draw together these separate fields is somewhat limited. I am not a doctor or baseball professional; and surely not an expert in any of these fields. And my picking out these factors may be lucky and irrelevant to the case. I would like to believe it is not that.

So, if any critique can be offered in this overview and the combination of these distinctly separate ideas into a ‘Coherent Convergence of a Steroid Theory/Fallacy’ as it applies to the sport of baseball, I would truly appreciate any insights this information.

756: My Emails, Bonds and the Steroids fallacy (Part 1)

Barry Lamar Bonds on August 7, 2007 finally hit the record breaker. Over the past two years, I have been very interesting in the pursuit (both on and off the field) of Bonds, Steroids and the defining of the Enhancement Era. Below are excerpts from emails I have wrote to various people in the past 18 months:

June 9, 2005 : To Kevin Wheeler, Sporting News Radio, Responded

I attached an interesting Excel file on baseball stats w/graphs. (TheBaseball Archive website is the source of this information.)

First, in 1950, the strike zone was redefined as being from the armpits to the top of the knee. Evidently, the umps back then (or complaints from the players) were getting out of hand and hitters and pitchers needed this stated again for their benefit. (See: Baseball Encyclopedia for rule changes and game scoring changes.)

Second, in 1963, the strike zone was expanded to the top of the shoulders to the bottom of the knees. Analysis of pitching strikeouts per team during this era reflects greater strikeout percentages. With the Pitching Mound all ready ‘set’ at 15 inches (a rule change originally made in 1903), this did give power pitchers (or great curveball pitchers) an advantage over most all hitters.

In 1969, after 6 years of anemic offense, the mound was lowered and the strike zone shrunk back to 1950 standards. This did not however precipitate an enormous increase in offense in the impending years. Essentially, run scoring did revert back to pre-1963, post-1950 standards. But strikeouts continued much as they had for a decade. Hitters were probably more willing to expand their strike zones instinctually and it is generally reflected in strikeouts records of that era (the early 1970’s.)

The turmoil of the mid -1970’s and early 1980’s era was due to the introduction of unrestricted free agency (and the reentry draft), league expansion (a continuation of the 1960’s), owner lockouts, player strikes and the DH rule. All would have a significant role in the‘redefining’ of the AL versus the NL play, but also the players’ wants versus the owners’ greed and control. Statistically, this era shows the first significant change in run scoring for each league upon adoption of the DH. (But overstated usually...)

Oddly, the stolen base was the new weapon, at least statistically, that emerged during this era. Before 1974, the league average never top 100SB/per team since 1941. Since then, rarely has it dipped below that marker. Speed has always been a plus, but rarely have players taken advantage of using it like they do during these recent times. Homeruns/per team/per season did not rise until after 1994.

Whether it is just steroids, newer ballparks (designed for power – the ‘Coors Effect’, The Ballpark at Arlington, Minute Maid, U.S. Cellular or Kauffman Stadium to name a few hitters’ havens), overly aggressive league expansion (causing a watering down of pitching talent vs. better hitters) or just chance, something has skewed the offensive numbers significantly enough to have increased run scoring to new heights.

Strikeouts are higher than ever, though possibly due to ‘going for homeruns’ instead of solid contact hitting, like the 1950’s and 1960’s are deemed to have been. (Walks have never varied much by league during the last 65 years.

March 13, 2006 - Prior to Book research: Written to Dan Lebatard, No response

During the last few of years, Steroids have once again made a big splash in the oldest of professional sports: Baseball. Each day, somenew revelation, opinion, rumor or media storm transpires to include more players (or the same ones), deems steroids as serious threat toassaulting long standing records and to the frail human body, and mostoften mentioned as a ultimate deterrent: the usage by children.

Dennis Kurcinich, a U.S. senator, once stated , “it is important to show that steroids cannot get you ahead…and teaching children that steroidsare bad.”

First, steroids are not “bad.” Abuse of them through overdosing, improper usage and lack of proper medical prescription and guidance is the real terrorizing factor, not the drugs themselves. For those athletes that took them in the 1970’s, 80’s and early 90’s without medical supervision, inadequate personal knowledge of side effects and the 2nd rate resources, steroids did indeed have tragic results in someof these athletes, namely boxers, football players and track athletes,among others that "typically experimented."

Like anything else considered taboo, illegal and performance-enhancing against the 'rules', written and/or unwritten, people shied away from advertising their usage, even to their own personal doctors, and going against proper medical advice or getting no advice at all. This is more likely the reason for the adverse reactions to Steriods - in much the same vein as breast augmentation went so horribly awry in 1960's through late 1980's.

To say steroids do not help, as the senator said in misspeaking about the ramifications and/or results, he needs to look at these immediate results: Ken Caminiti, NL MVP; Barry Bonds, multiple-MVP with usage(confirmed in illegally leaked GRAND JURY testimony); Mark Mcgwire, former HR record holder; Jason Giambi, AL MVP; Ben Johnson, once the fastest man in the world (for a time); Jose Canseco, prodigious HRhitter; The 1970's Pittsburgh Steelers; and many others that weretransformed into better ball players, became faster, stronger, etc.

The caveat is to utilize them correctly; and to know how to reduce usage appropriately, while playing, and after retiring from a sport. My viewpoint is this: The ‘real’ business of athletics is to obtain or reach the highest levels of performance through any means available. However, this sometimes is deemed unscrupulous by the media & legal perspective, yet with the substantial rewards (the money) to follow, aplayer rarely rejects the ability to improve his/her performance.

And many GMs and owners, such as San Diego’s GM Kevin Towers, have understood that this is a player’s primary motivator. Owners & General Managers have turned a blind eye for years to continue to attract record numbers to the park, the arena and the stadium while padding their bottom lines, unscrupulously and callously doing so at thedetriment of the players and the fans. (The media has played its part too in the lack of focus on this issue for years at a time.)

Professional and collegiate sports have grown into multi-billion dollar industries which promote vigorously the business aspects of sport overthe dying respect of the supposely long-begotten days of youthful excitement of just playing the game for the game. And with this, persons that participate at an expert level, the game is no longer just fun, but a lifestyle, a career and end-all-be-all, to most players. With all the technology and desire to do it, would it not be better tomonitor all athletes, knowing they are using, but to keep the steroids at reasonable levels with doctor’s analysis?

Many experts (doctors, not users) have stated that these chemicals can be safe and effectivewith proper management, dosages and prescription. At least this would protect athletes, give a safeguard and possibly open dialogue to cleanup voluntarily, without accusations and asterisks. But more to the point, Steriods are to no greater detriment than othe ractions taken in sports to gain advantages.

As Dr. Norman Fost states,"Every athlete uses unnatural enhancements," as a University of Wisconsin professor of Pediatrics and Director of the program in Medical Ethics he has been outspoken in his regard of Steroid usage since the 1980's. Certainly, when one compares the usage of training methods that significantly improve performance, endurance and peak outputs, one can hardly argue against such usage of techniques solely based on their results. But Dr. Fost goes on, "My major point is that the multiple claims that these drugs are immoral are incoherent, disingenuous, hypocritical or based on unsubstantiated, false orexaggerated empiric claims."

Why?

Because there is no compelling evidence that Steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs pose a health threat and can kill. For Fost, there is no compelling evidence the use of the drugs causes cancer or other serious ailments. "I think athletes should be allowed to use them if they want, preferably under medical supervision," he said. In an interview, Fost recalled the day former Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of the 1988 Olympic gold medal he won in the 100-meter dash after testing positive for taking steroids. On the same day, Fost said, world-class swimmer Janet Evans was bragging about the"slime suit" she wore that she said made her swim faster."She was quite sure it had shred precious seconds off her time. This was hailed in the press," Fost said.

In each case, Johnson and Evans used unnatural methods to achieve their goal of faster times and fame. But Johnson became the poster boy for drug use and Evans was acclaimed as America's sweetheart, he said."There are a thousand-plus drugs, chemicals, supplements, foods, etc.,that athletes take to enhance performance, most of which are allowed," Fost wrote. Should we ban them all? he asked. Another example of this false dichotomy: usage of high-altitude training to increase one’s red blood cell count, which is legal, while taking EPO is illegal to garner the exact same results.

The usually arguments against performance enhancers are: Character, physical disability and “rules are rules.”

Does it really take ‘character’ to carbo-load or utilize a special dietto enhance performance? Not if we define “character” as being of “Moral or ethical strength” which has nothing to do with the physical training process.

Physical disability is high prevalent in the NFL and NHL due to the violent natures of both sports, yet we rarely mandate much more than improved safety gear and regularly used Pain Killers (ala Brett Favre). After retirement, most players are forever plagued by nagging injuries suffered in their sport. It is a fallacy to place a singular cause ofthese aggravations (in the pre-testing era) on steroids.

“Rule are rules” mentality means we should be even more appalled at the clear cases of violations of any rules at all.

For example, Gaylord Perry for 20 plus seasons utilized a spitter which was flagrantly against the rules that outlawed it in 1920. Yet, a premier publicationin baseball, The Sporting News, condoned and “wanted legalization” ofthe pitch in the 1960’s. Also, the commissioner at that time, Ford Frick, condoned the cheating while lobbied for legalization. But Gaylord is a HOF pitcher and no doubt will continue to be, as will Mr.Frick.

It is quite circumspect to critique harshly so many Steroid users as"bad" or "bad role models" when we, as a society, blantantly over look others utilization of gaining "an edge" on opponents through ANY means necessary to win, garner records or moreover, gain monetary success. Have we ever stopped long enough to learn exactly what the long-lasting effects are, or what (if any) controls can exist? Or how we can change the usage, procedures or maintenance of any situation involving drugs (or other possibly useful ideas), without criminality introduced intothe foray?

We sometimes talk of an open society, a tolerant society, but it does not truly exist. In fact, more everyday, America becomes dead set against anyone trying to succeed or changing himself or herself, outside the perceived norm. Some ways are harmful, but it is not solely due to the drugs, or techniques or the direct personal reactionsto them. Some of it is driven by a freedom-restricting, quasi-pious society afraid to properly address (or cope) with the spectrum of human behavior which is driven by instinctual, psychologically motivating andpeer pressure-related factors.

Accountability for steroids is mutual; and no one wants to address that, because it lessens the societal impact of the perceived wrong or future punishment to be meted out forthe objectionable action.

Lastly, we overlook (and ignore) countless flaws of men or punishdecent men (ruthlessly) without merit. Kenesaw Mountain Landis was the first commissioner of MLB. He's well-known for the "Eight Men Out"scandal involving gambling and the throwing a World Series. What he's little known for is his racism and bigotry in including blacks in MajorLeague baseball. Yet his 'overall' service is given induction into the Baseball HOF.

In Ali v. United States, the Justice Department refused the petitioner Muhammad Ali to forgo entry into the U.S. Armed Services under the conscientious-objector claim. At one point, before his Supreme Court ruling, he was under a 5-year federal sentence. Additionally, because of this, he lost his World Heavyweight Championship and the ability to box in the United States. Yet, after appealing the ruling of lower courts, he was justly set free of all commitments. His is a case of injustice for no productive reason but spite.

We are hunting for reasons to keep intact records (in baseball) that are in fact 'all ready tainted' by racism, obvious cheating, gambling and various other on-field methods (scoring of fielding errors) of enhancing the records of individuals and teams.

We should let it all alone because to 'pick and choose' which players, managers,commissioners sought to fairly play the game, or right the wrongs in the past, justly and/or unjustly, is a total waste of effort and uses only Situational Ethics.

March 30, 2006: Various friends and sports minded people, one response

Once again, MLB is trying to dress up the whole steroid issue. By hiring (or appointing) Mr.George Mitchell (a former senator and current Boston Red Sox director) to inquire into usage by baseball player post September 30, 2002.

(Assuming) Do we think they are going to garner any evidence new to the fray? Are they just going to investigate power hitters (which seems flawed, since I would think Pitchers would benefit immensely from faster recovery times after pitching) and put blinders on for the time prior to 2002?

MLB has know about Steroids long before 2002 and even 1998. Owners, GM, top executives all had intimate details about who was using as early as 1994. So this whole ruse to portray certain players as engrossed in acon, sham or call-it-what-you-will is pathetic given prior knowledge.

If you were paying a guy $5 Million, $10 million or $15 million a year,wouldn't you know what this guy does in is private life? As an owner, spending $200 million a year, you would. Not paranoid, but common business sense - that's why they make money too. To understand risk/reward and the fallout that sometimes is beneficial to the bottomline.

Our POTUS (acronym) was once part-owner of the Texas Rangers back in the early 1990's. At one point in 1992, Jose Canseco was traded to Texas.

Now, I ask you: you think they (Texas ownership) was unaware of his usage at all? Mr. Bush's daddy, George the elder, was the former Director of the CIA. Intelligence gathering runs literally in the blood. People that are in high powered positions don't go into situations without the slightest inkling of what are the character flaws of people hired. They actually make it a point to know. (Trust is a rare commodity where money and power is involved.)

The witch hunt now is driven by those dead set against Mr. Barry Bonds breaking a hallowed record. Funny though, it was originally set back in the 1930's when blacks couldn't play. Josh Gibson was every bit the power hitter the Babe was, and could have very well held that HR title. But that didn't happen. Henry Aaron hasn't said much regarding the chase that I've heard. Probably because he played with Barry's father, and godfather, Willie Mays.

Or more to the point, he understands the striving for excellence leads people to do less than what is morally acceptable. (He saw plenty of it, even in the 50's and 60's.) Players have used drugs for years. Engaged in harmful activities, like Mickey Mantle drinking, that did the polar opposite of using Steroids. Course if hitting was just a steroid shot away, then anyone could doit, right?

No. Inherent talent must exist. Bonds genetically, through his daddy,was a superior ballplayer to begin with. Probably a first ballot HOFer before he injected or smeared steroid one. The jealousy and (paranoia) at having sub-par ballplayers hit 50,60 or 70 HRs may very well have motivated such an athlete. Especially when it's the difference between a 9-million-a-year contract and $20-million-a-season gig.

But when people call Bonds paranoid now I say, "How can you be paranoid when people ARE ACTUALLY investigating EVERY last detail of your lifefor the last 10 years???" And even after testing all last season, they didn't get a positive test? (Granted HGH doesn't have a test from allaccounts...)

Then there is 'Game of Shadows.' Investigative reporting -leaked grand jury testimony (only illegal, mind you) - and all the TALKRADIO teems with negativity about one guy: Bonds, Barry Bonds.

It does put our little worries in perspective, given all the tabloids,media hype and circus and ESPN(Especially Suited for Pathetic News)reporting of Bud 'the Dud' Selig and his minions of silly baseball executives trying to STOP Bonds from approaching the record of putting balls over a fence from 330 feet or more away.

I use to adore baseball - played it everyday I possibly could growing up - but as my heros became frauds, my coaches turned out to be idiots,and the world became an ugly place, I lost my faith, in even baseball.

I still play 'fantasy baseball' because it's a cold-hearted business attimes. Performance, not likeability, drives my decisions toadd/drop/trade a player. It's math - the unbias science of numbers -that makes it enjoyable. Well, that's my rant. If you read it, you might think I'm paranoid. ;)

Baseball Changes, Milestones & Favorite bloggers: It's Monday!

With Barry Bonds tying Hank Aaron, a new study by Universal Medical Systems reflects that the baseball was indeed changed from Hank's time to Barry's. In using CT scanning, the company headed by David R. Zavagno, has produced scans that reflect the ball has been modified and tested baseballs from the late 1970's versus the late 1990's. The differences were significant.

A significant quote from the release: "According to our CT scans, the balls themselves are juiced," states Zavagno.

A-Rod, another great ballplayer, hit his 500th homer during the ball-enhanced era. Tom Glavine, crafty lefthander for the New York Mets, got his 300th victory over my beloved Cubs on my birthday. So a weekend came and went with baseballs and milestones at the top of the news. (Aside from the Minnesota Bridge calamity...)

To the blogs we go!

Bipolarwellness - insightful, honest, informative and personal blog that I've visited frequently is always a well thought out look at living with, caring for and dealing with life in any state of mind.

Girl in Short Shorts - Witty, Liberal and a lawyer, yep, an ex-lawyer blog has to be the most sexually charged blog I visit. She writes EXACTLY what she's feeling or thinking.

I used to think that was cute. Very diverse, wrote a recent blog on cancer cures that people should be aware of. Just started to go there.

I haven't been by many blogs lately. I got caught up in my own BS for too long. (Like that never happens to you.)

Time for some sunshine... 'Katrina & The Waves' style

ESPN Poll: Barry Bonds Divides World, via his race

Barry Lamar Bonds was a topic on Baseball Tonight, prior to the Philadelphia and San Francisco game. This time via another "scientific" poll. The results were displayed on the TV broadcast, but I lack the link to the final results...They were "interesting"...to say the least.

The biggest results of this poll is that RACE and RACE RELATIONS are still skewed. Not a shocker, not a surprise, given the subject matter: Bonds, Steroids, Successful African American males in Sports.

Bonds has done little good for his image, with his off-the-cuff, coming-across-as-arrogant nature. But I think he's used almost solely as a scapegoat for the inability of commisioner Bud Selig to manage his quasi-monopoly properly. Bonds made trouble for himself - via words and his friction laden relations with the all-powerful sports media - and gets the spotlight shown on his career as a sham.

Steroids, steroids, and more steroids. Right before the Giants-Phillies game, another Steroids Ad was ran to show what steroids do...Another generalization to anyone who has taken them or knows about the 600 types of steroids.

Lastly, successful black athletes don't get the bypass that caucasians do often for their behavior. While they will both get media, black athletes will be more scrutinized, more vilified, and otherwised dismissed as a "product" of their upbringing, not knowing what is right or not knowing how to handle success. Both an overgeneralization, but done by the majority white media...

More to come - and read the second post I made on the STEROIDS FALLACY. It's long, but the GRAPHS (clickable) reflect some analysis about what did not cause this problem...

Three Baseball Control Charts, A Sample on the book

Chart #1 - Comparison of Two Eras of Baseball

Chart #2 - Dead Ball Era Revisited


Chart #3 - Post 1950 Home Run Control Chart

All about the Money, Statistics and Steriods: An Excerpt
But the ultimate statement of the steroid ‘Problem’ is: What percentage of steroid users in baseball actually improved statistically to caused the huge rises in offense seen in this 10-plus year barrage of runs? Could not using better nutrition, maintaining off and in-season physical training and utilizing video methods, be more important than the use of steroids? Or how about another, more logical, reason or reasons? Why has the offense seen not reduced back to pre –1993 levels since the outing of steroid usage in the MLB and the enforcement of a steroid policy? Is it possible hGH was far more significant (even given Jason Grimsley’s mediocre career) or is that too a fallacy? (Or is prior weight training also a prerequisite to improved performance on the ball diamond.)
As Dr. William N. Taylor in Macho Medicine determined in a study performed on those who were prior trained in weight lifting and those who were not, the study reflected that gains in performance, muscle mass and strength while using steroids could only be conclusive with prior weight trained subjects.[1] With that said, it is nearly a prerequisite to be properly trained in weightlifting techniques in order to gain the requisite enhancements for the sport of baseball - that which could affect bat speed, arm strength and base running ability.
Several analyses of the recent years reflect changes far earlier than anyone currently reports which would have affected even the ‘pure’ ballplayers of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. But these changes have little to do with steroids, but what could be the conspicuous causation of the changes?
[1] Taylor WN. Macho Medicine: A History of the Anabolic Steroid Epidemic. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.; 1991. 30-33.

Once again, we turn back to the idea that baseball changed significantly prior to the 1994 season. That in a period of one off season, the ratio of home runs and doubles per at bats for players jumped significantly, far out of bounds to any other period/year in Major League Baseball history. The reason for this selection of measuring of power hitting (Doubles added) is that doubles do generally reflect a propensity to hit for home runs and make up the majority of extra base hits for any team, and thus are significant to both runs scored and slugging averages.
This can be seen in Chart #3.

It is obvious to this observer that in 1994, a distinct and significant change happened in both leagues. The ratio of Power Statistics increased sharply, more than 3 standard deviations from the normal averages seen between 1950 and 1985, inclusively; the offensive outburst has continued well into the 21st century, more than 10 years.
That steroids is ‘just a convenient excuse’ but is not an actual definitive causation of this outburst is fairly clear. Taking a shot, applying a cream or popping a pill does not suddenly result (in less than a year) in 2 or 3+ standard deviations of enhanced performance for all full-time ballplayers in MLB (once again, the players included were those that had 150 At bats per season each year since 1950) and continue on to the present day (2006) with zero abatement, even after steroid policies were instituted.

To fall outside the 6-sigma chart on a consistent basis means a process is out of control and is 99.75% unlikely to happen in a normal working process once without a concrete cause. But to continue to happen, reflects a process change that is attributable to unique factors…


What has changed the offense of baseball must been seen in the context of the past as well as the present day. In the prior years, mound changes, strike zone adjustments, ball changes, ballpark changes and the addition of an entire classification of people (African Americans), had their effects on the game. Why is it that these same culprits could not be the same causes to the outbursts in offense?

Looking at Chart #1, comparing two eras – Coolidge (1919 –1932) to Clinton (1992–2005) – the similarities in the slopes of each line are clearly evident. The first three seasons of each reflects the transition between the old offenses to the newly found power ratios seen in each. As discussed in prior chapters, Babe Ruth uppercut, cleaner and more fresh balls, rules changes and possibly internal changes to the ball yarn, likely caused the rise to the ‘modern day’ levels from the first twenty seasons of the 20th century. (Chart #2) But a second offensive explosion was to be experienced in the 1990’s and has continued on with zero regression back to the good old days of baseball.

In 1992 through 1994, little if any talk about steroids could be tied to the explosion. The outburst came during the heels of labor disputes, a few ballpark changes and likely (if unreported) baseball manipulations. Furthermore, after the strike, the impetus to rebuild fan bases and pack the ballparks would only be done through offenses dominating, not pitchers’ duels. As stated before, it is not difficult to understand the marketing of the ‘long ball’ to sell baseball after losing the most important games of the 1994 season: the seven games of the World Series...

In 1999, Nike creatively infused the catch phrase, “chicks dig the long ball,” into a commercial featuring Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux – future hall of famers – getting shown up by Mark McGwire hitting home runs. As Howard Byrant opines, “ The sport that could never properly market itself had finally found a marketable star: the home run.”[1]
Not completely correct. The home run was ‘properly marketed’ back in the 1920’s and certainly used that initial impetus to further the game ever since with every home run star born from Babe Ruth, DiMaggio, Williams, Mantle to Mays, Banks, Aaron, Jackson, Schmidt and Bonds, along with numerous others that predicated their careers on the big fly. Even a cursory glance at the past reflects the biggest contracts have been in the hands of home run hitters, and the marketing of those players has been nearly always in relation to (and a reflection of) their careers as the big boppers, and ultimately to the demise of their careers in a town if they could not hit the ball in the stands.
Sammy Sosa’s lucrative career in Chicago would provide an interesting study in the rise and fall of a slugger’s popularity and marketability as the fortunes of his home run prowess and the Cubs team turned south together after 2003. “Yet going from 30-30 [HRs and SBs] to 64-0 in just six years was exactly the kind of statistic that spoke for an era in which power had trumped every nuance baseball had to offer.”[2]Once again, this is not correct. In looking at stolen bases, the numbers are significantly higher in the Clinton Era than say the IKE or FDR Era, on average. Which means it isn’t just a home run show; yet even in that ‘jaded reality’, the analysis time and time again reflects that OBP % and SLG % translate into runs scored; and not necessarily stealing bases by the truck load.
[1] Abid. 144.
[2] Abid. 150.

Stolen bases are hardly indicative of run scoring success to any large degree. Players on some MLB teams are conditioned not to risk outs for a stolen base (or even a sacrifice bunt) unless it is nearly assured. Speaking to this risk logic, General manager J.P Ricciardi defines Toronto’s philosophy when asked about sacrificing. “Give up outs to score runs? We don’t do that here.”[1] (But this does not mean a few base stealers will not or do not take such risks.) And why is not steroids a factor in that portion of the game? To examine Juiced, Jose Canseco contended that steroids helped him “build strength, quickness, and, most importantly, stamina.”[2] So why haven’t more base stealers taken advantage of steroids, or have they? (Ben Johnson did it in becoming the fastest human on earth in 1988; and former 100-meter world record holder (9.77) Justin Gatlin was recently suspended for eight years from track and field competition for his usage of banned substances.)
[1] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 245.
[2] Steinberg A. In Defense of Steroids: Jose Canseco’s Surprisingly Sensible Case for the Juice. Unknown: http://www.highbeam.com; 2005 June 1. Last Accessed: June 8 2006.

Yet, it shows the misinformation allowed to permeate the average fans psyche. By recent accounts, home runs are considered ‘bad’, by the current media, under the inauspicious cloud of steroids. Because they were hit by guys that are reported as ‘steroid abusers’, ‘bulked up’ or ‘have suddenly found unusual power.’ Yet even that assessment is relative to the expert reasoning of the media when they conveniently overlook certain players (Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez, Ryan Howard, Jim Thome, Alfonso Soriano and Derrek Lee for a few current examples) as being clean and free of any steroid implications, even when they are playing still under this dark cloud of the ‘Steroid Era.’
The Steroid Era label says something about the players to the average fan. Unnatural. Fake. Cheating the game. Not like before. But the evidence of a vast steroid usage scandal supporting huge Home Run (and Doubles) totals is almost solely without merit. Given that the offense was precipitated long before the steroids can be solely attributed to those rises.
If only because the time frame (1993-94 to 2006) and consistency (of the numbers, year to year) are too opportune across the board to be unnaturally enhanced by just steroids or hGH (human growth hormone.) In the past, pitchers eventually adjusted to players. Why not now? Why are just hitters getting the presumed power benefits from steroids and not pitchers in their recovery and ability to gut out longer performances? (Even though Major League Baseball reported more pitchers caught for steroid usage than position players through 2005.) Or does it point to something else altogether, unreported, that is much more logical and possibly, measurable?
It is nonsense to predicate the entire decade of offensive outburst discussed on just steroids as the ‘bad’ guy. Given the countless changes to ballparks (19 new since 1991), baseballs, bats, strike zones (QuesTec monitoring of strike zones calls and instituting the UIS), on-field conditions, training regiments, video tapes and a myriad of other realities, steroids are not the only ‘Foundations of Power’ to be reviled by the sports media, upset fans and curiously, involving a former team owner, now a United States President, numerous Senators and Congressman.
(Who I think have better, more important things to consider daily: like obtaining better paying jobs for underprivileged, fixing health care payments and options, developing real solutions to inner city realities, funding the discovery of cures and causes to diseases, re-codifying (properly) all criminal laws, improving environmental stances on urban sprawl, hazardous chemicals produced by manufacturers and ozone/global warming predicaments and improving our ‘standing’ in the world’s estimation, amongst the ‘short’ list of ‘things to do.’)


Other Theories on Power Explosion
Amid the intense media backdrop of steroids, lays a variety of theories on the causation of the power outburst and the variety of changes seen in the game of baseball in the past fifteen years:
1) “That baseball encouraged the construction of hitter-friendly parks…”[1] The ‘Ballpark Effect’ can almost be directly tied to one firm: HOK Sport. “Helmuth, Obata & Kassabaum (HOK) Sports Facilities Group has been integral to ballpark renaissance that began in the 1990s. Formed in 1983[2], the Kansas City-based company has designed many of the sports new facilities…Comiskey Park (U.S. Cellular), Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Jacobs Field, Coors Field, Comerica Park, SBC Park, Minute Maid Park, PNC Park, Great American Ballpark, PETCO Park and Citizens Bank Park.”[3]
The almost yearly opening of a new stadium with ‘an old-time feel’ most likely utilized ‘new CADD’ and modeling of ‘wind and carry’ effects to the benefit of the offense. (Not always, but certainly the numbers from many of the parks reflect an impressive barrage of extra base hits.) “In the wake of Camden Yards fourteen teams moved into new parks in the decade between 1994 and 2004, including the expansion Arizona Diamondbacks, who had a new stadium built in Phoenix before their first season.”[4]
Even one national writer, Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports, suggests that the lead architect of HOK Sport + Venue + Event, Joe Spear, should be considered for a special award: the currently fictitious Buck O’Neil award for meritorious service to baseball.[5] Though a very unique and deserving honor to bestow on an architect, it may overlook the possibility that Mr. Spear was partly instrumental to the rise of offenses in the 1990’s and present day that has drawn such an outcry from the baseball purists and media pundits.

14 HOK Sport Ballparks and 1 in Construction
q U.S. Cellular Field
q Minute Maid Park
q Tropicana Field
q Oriole Park at Camden Yards
q AT&T Park (SBC)
q Great America Ballpark
q Jacobs Field
q PNC Park
q Dolphin Stadium
q Coors Field
q Citizens Bank Park
q PETCO Park
q Comerica Park
q Busch Stadium III
q Washington (2008)

In an interview by Peter Handrinos for Scout.com, HOK Sport’s Joe Spear reflects on his designing of Pilot Field in Buffalo that led to the Camden Yards project, “…You know, baseball doesn’t have to be played in a concrete behemoth. It can be played in a smaller ballpark with better sight lines, better proximity to the game, and real intimacy for the fans.”[6] These smaller ballparks would certainly allow players to hit more home runs and doubles while keeping fans happy at the park while also giving the fan the intimacy of being in the action.
Probably the most important aspect of each of these $200-350 million dollar projects (now upwards $750 million) were their approximating of old downtown parks like Boston’s Fenway or Chicago’s Wrigley to generate huge local revenues by allowing fans to saunter in from their cars to the ballgame and back out to neighborhood watering holes or other fun places located nearby. As Spear continues on, “I’m personally thinking of the ball park in terms of a fan’s experience. The real success stories from our projects aren’t in the architecture or engineering, but in the way the fans enjoy the ballpark…That’s so crucial. I think that’s why places like Wrigley and Fenway have stood the test of time - they embrace their surroundings in such an effective way. The question for my current plan, for instance, has to be, ‘How can we make sure that this project is completely about Washington?’”[7]
But the in-the-field affects to these ballparks were also discussed. As one exchange offers:
Peter Handrinos: “In those early projects, you broke with past tradition in another way - for the first time in a long time, your ballparks had asymmetrical outfields and outfield wall features. Why did you go in that direction?”
Joe Spear: “Oriole Park at Camden Yards was the first real taste of that.
The team, from day one, wanted that and rightly so. It makes it interesting; to debate whether Barry Bonds would have hit a home run in a particular playing field or some other particular play would have been an out in another field. That sort of thing can change the outcome of a game, so it adds a layer of richness.
The challenge was for us to find a genuine reason to [vary ball park dimensions], almost like making art out of a found object. In each project, we’ve looked for logical, genuine reasons to do that without just copying the Green Monster or B&O Warehouse or something else.”[8]
This statement reflects that ballparks were intentionally designed for their variations and that these variations could change outcomes of games – and possibly home run records.

2) “They also knew that hitters were using harder bats made of maple and dipped in lacquer in the place of the untreated ash bats of old...”[9] New technology and chemicals are not unusual to find in competitive sports. The NFL, NHL, PGA, NASCAR, IRL, NTA and any other multi-billion dollar operation have to advance safety and performance with state-of-the-art information and equipment.
Golf and Tennis has seen numerous changes in the length and power of balls hit using oversize drivers and rackets, so much so that the courses in golf are regularly ‘lengthen’ to increase difficulty to score pars and birdies. The NFL has instituted better helmet technology, has taken advantage of medical breakthroughs and certainly prescribes cortisone shots for pain relief. (Future HOF Quarterback Brett Favre was dependent on them, at one time.)
NASCAR has established better helmet technology, added restrictor plates to engines for reduced speeds and constantly monitors the cars with on-board telemetry. IRL designs cars that absorb energy in crashes and consistently improves the horsepower performances of their vehicles while maintaining very strict adherence to safety concerns.
And the NHL changed the rules to require all players to wear helmets and uses video technology to reevaluate goals made. It is no surprise that baseballs and ball bats have undergone numerous changes, as stated before by Dr. Adair.
In the MLB, the use of maple and lacquered bats in place of ash could be a primary cause of increased distances seen on current baseballs. As one 1994 article reflects, “To simulate hitting conditions, says [Scott] Smith, ‘we fire the balls out of an air cannon [at 58 mph] against a northern white-ash wooden wall, which is the same material that baseball bats are made of.’ Their objective: to measure how much energy the balls retain when they bounce off the wall.”[10] If the testing process does not mirror the current technology [the bats], it could be possible the values are higher than what is allowed via the testing process.
These lacquered baseball bats are predominately made by big outfits – Louisville Slugger, Rawlings, Mizuno, Sam Bat – but one maker, Maruccibats.com located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana has developed an impressive clientele of sluggers: Manny Ramirez, David Ortiz (50 Home Runs in 2006), Albert Pujols, Carlos Beltran, Vernon Wells, Miguel Tejada, Ryan Howard (58 Home Runs in 2006), Gary Sheffield, David Wright and former stars Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro.[11] Founded in 2002, each bat is selected from a billet sent by Hogan Hardwoods of Ruston, LA[12], hand made on a lathe to spec, boned with a cow femur and sent out to the major leaguer. The fact that a small outfit (one that turns out 1,000 bats per year in an 8’ by 10’ shop) can produced bats of the superior quality sluggers of this caliber love, while adhering to the specifications MLB puts on the bats, likely means the specifications may not be all that tight on equipment being used or is not overly inspected by officials. Or certainly not checked for tampering without incidence. (Sammy Sosa’s corked bat fiasco.)
To further explain why an outfitter in Louisiana has cornered the market for sluggers, a study done by University of Massachusetts engineers on bats of various levels of the sport reflects that a higher moisture content may also provide additional pop in the bat. As one part of the report reflects, " Different baseball stadiums will, therefore, expose wooden bats to different conditions at different times of the year. The Wood Handbook (1999)…identifies the equilibrium moisture content for Phoenix, Arizona in the month of June to be 4.6% on average, whereas Los Angeles, California is 15.1% in …August…the bats which are stored in the environment for even a few days will show a change in moisture content. It is, therefore, important to determine the effects…"[13]
This study analyzed bats utilizing a setup that would mirror MLB players typical usage of either:
1) Using the same bat in various cities around the country (with moisture content modifying)
2) Using a variety of bats based on feel at the time (bats that differ, though physically are the same in ordinary measures)
The results show that a slight, but unmistakable, increase in batted-ball velocity of nearly 1% held true across the board when moisture content was changed from 6.7% to 10.9%. This additional velocity does explain why Louisiana-made bats are more lively, since the humidity is a well known aspect of the climate. And later, Dr. Adair's analysis will further this point.

As Peter Handrinos writes on his website, www.UnitedStatesofBaseball.com, about this phenomenon in Barry Bonds, Pt. II: ‘Too Good’: “ And, with the one-year spike in 2001 accounted for, Bonds performance surge from 2002 and 2002 to 2004 is easily adjusted…just over 46 home runs per year…it’s hardly an other-worldly mark in an era fueled by smaller ballparks, smaller strike zones, hard-lacquered bats, and body armor…”[14]

3) “Most significantly, two tools that pitchers most needed to be effective…the strike zone… and the freedom to intimidate hitters by throwing inside.”[15]
With the implementation of video technology and consistent manipulation of what a strike is suppose to be, it is little wonder that pitchers, most effected by those changes, have found it harder to consistently get out hitters. As shown before, the expansion of the strike zone led to the worst offensive season (1968) in the modern era. Now, the contraction and monitoring of the strike zone, has likely assisted in the fattening the totals of MLB offenses.No one is particularly immune to these changes. Power pitchers that throw in excess of 95 MPH are being combated by a shrinking strike zone, inability to pitch inside without getting tossed and batters that have thinner-handled bats, better video tools to fix errors in swings and plenty of motivation to achieve totals. (Financial motivation, not necessarily winning games motives.)
[1] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 210.
[2] Unknown. HOK Sport & Event & Event. Unknown: http://www.wikipedia.com; 2006 April 9. Last Accessed: 4/10/2006.
[3] Leventhal J, MacMurray J. Take Me Out to the Ballpark: An Illustrated Tour of Baseball Parks Past and Present. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal Publishers; 2006. 15.
[4] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 153.
[5] Passan J. Re-examining the Hall. Cooperstown, New York: Yahoo! Sports; 2006 July 30. http://www.yahoosports.com Last Accessed: August 8, 2006.
[6] Handrinos P. Baseball Men – The Architect. Unknown: http://TheSTLCardinals.scout.com; 2005 November 11. Last Accessed: April 22, 2006.
[7] Handrinos P. Baseball Men – The Architect. Unknown: http://TheSTLCardinals.scout.com; 2005 November 11. Last Accessed: April 22, 2006.
[8] Handrinos P. Baseball Men – The Architect. Unknown: http://TheSTLCardinals.scout.com; 2005 November 11. Last Accessed: April 22, 2006.
[9] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 210.
[10] Stein BP. Major-league Mystery. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group [Scholastic, Inc.]; 1994 September 2. Last Accessed: June 8, 2006. http://www.highbeam.com
[11] Marucci J. The Marucci Bat Company. Baton Rouge, LA: http://www.maruccibats.com; 2006. Last Accessed August 24, 2006.
[12] Davis B. Marucci Bats Have ‘Major’ Punch. Ruston, LA: http://www.rustonleader.com/news.php?id=1538; 2006 July 24. Last Accessed: August 24, 2006.
[13] Sherwood JA, Drane PJ. The Effects of Moisture Content and Workhardening on Baseball Bat Performance. Lowell, MA: Baseball Research center, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts; 2000?. 3.
[14] Handrino PC. Barry Bonds, Pt. II: ‘Too Good’: More Vague Rumors and Clear Facts on the Giant. unknown: http://www.unitedstatesofbaseball.com; 2005 April 7. Last Accessed: August 24, 2006.
[15] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 210.

“To Jim Palmer, the HOF Baltimore pitcher, the zone deserved more discussion than it received…the loss of the high strike contributed to skyrocketing offense as much as drug use or anything else…the beauty of the ‘old’ strike zone, thought Yankees pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre, was that there were pitches that were called strikes that could not be hit…since 1968, when Bob Gibson dominated the game, umpires had been systemically reinterpreting the strike zone on their own.”
Due to this, QuesTec, installed by new umpiring head Ralph Nelson into the game, was used to monitor (and evaluate) umpires calls behind the plate, starting in 2001. The technology was unreliable, by most reports – but has continued to be used in baseball parks. “Robert Adair were not completely dismissive of QuesTec, nor did Adair absolve the umpires. His conclusion was simply that the technology was not quite ready to be an evaluating tool.”[1]

4) Baseball Changes - “In May 2000 Bud Selig sent Sandy Alderson (former Oakland A’s executive until 1999) to Costa Rica to investigate the baseball. Alderson left the Rawlings factory in Turrialba convinced that the ball was unchanged from the previous season. Still, Alderson believed the trip was in part fruitless; there were too many variables involved – from the actual cowhide which may have varied from year to year, to the personnel – to make an accurate assessment…pitchers and hitters alike, remained convinced the ball was tighter…The ball was too smooth, (David) Wells thought, estimating that only one and ten balls he used during a game had seams raised high enough for him…to give the ball some action….Ken Macha, the manager of the Oakland A’s who had a collection of 1987 balls in his garage from his days as an Expos coach, was convinced that no part of the game had been juiced like the ball itself. ”[2]
In early 2007, a report was released on the usage of a CT scan done by Universal Medical Systems, Inc., supplier of open-sided MRI and CT scan equipment for more than 20 years, that reflects that Mark McGwire 70th home run hit had a synthetic rubber ring around the "pill" of the ball, against the MLB specifications. The following is a long excerpt of that article:
"Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball from his record-breaking 1998 season contains a synthetic rubber ring or spring ("the ring") -- a material not outlined in official Major League Baseball ("the League") specifications. The ring and enlarged rubberized core of the baseball are clearly visualized in a computed tomography (CT) scan of the baseball…
UMS, with assistance from Dr. Avrami S. Grader and Dr. Philip M. Halleck from The Center for Quantitative Imaging at Penn State University, utilized a CT scanner to study additional League baseballs from 1998 and found the baseballs have significantly enlarged cores in a variety of shapes and sizes.
The League Specifications vs. McGwire's 70th Home Run Ball According to the League's specifications, "the pill of the baseball shall consist of a compressed cork sphere surrounded by one layer of black rubber and one layer of red rubber." The League does not specify a synthetic rubber ring or any additional material.
'Examining the CT images of Mark McGwire's 70th home run ball one can clearly see the synthetic ring around the core -- or 'pill' -- of the baseball,' states David Zavagno, president of Universal Medical Systems. 'While Mark McGuire may or may not have used illegal steroids, the evidence shows his ball -- under the governing body of the League -- was juiced.'
In 2000, in response to concerns about an altered ball contributing to increased home runs, the League commissioned and paid [along with Rawlings, $400,000 in 1998 to the Center][3] for a study from the UMass-Lowell Baseball Research Center. The report found no change in the ball. However, photos within the report show the synthetic rubber ring and identify numerous other problems.
The league publicly announced the baseball was not a cause of increased home runs. However, the historical words "cushioned cork center" were later removed from baseballs. In addition, computerized strike checkers were installed in the League's parks to expand the strike zone, and the League worked towards establishing drug testing standards. In fact, Commissioner Bud Selig named former Senator George Mitchell to lead an investigation into the use of illegal steroids by baseball players. Another interesting action, the Colorado Rockies utilized a humidor for their balls. 'The League is as guilty as the individual players,' says Zavagno. 'Its desire to protect the image of the game, while recording huge revenues and setting new performance records, allowed scandalous problems to escalate. Only after Congress stepped in on the steroid problem did the League begrudgingly act. Now it may take similar scrutiny for the League to admit the modern-day baseball does not conform to its own specifications. Because of the scandals -- baseball material alterations, lax rule enforcement and rampant use of steroids -- the Hall of Fame voting process could be tainted for decades. Hall of Fame voters need to understand many historical statistical comparisons are no longer relevant.'"[4]
[1] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 234.
[2] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 211-12.
[3] University of Massachusetts Baseball Research Center Website. Last Accessed: January 4, 2007.
[4] Zavagno David. McGwire's 70th Home Run Ball Juiced, CT Scan Finds. Cleveland, OH: PR Newswire Association, LLC.; January 3, 2007.

Besides the revelation of a 'rubber ring' around the inside of the cushioned cork center area, the fact MLB paid a engineering research firm (initially $400,000) to conclude a result it desperately wants, that the ball has not been affected, is additionally suspicious. The existence of this manipulation should warrant a more thorough investigation, preferably from outside the MLB circles.
In addition to those thoughts, a telling assertion: “Sandy Alderson and Bill James had something else in common: Neither tended to think steroids were the primary reason for the explosion in offense.”[1] Bill James. At the very least, he is considered somewhat objective in his analysis of the sport – not tied financially to the ‘old school’ of baseball – that has to been seen as contrary to what should have been in the cases regarding African Americans up to the Reserve Clause. As Jeff Passan recently opined: “ No matter what someone thinks of statistics and their place in baseball, James’ influence is undeniable…James is the godfather of sabermetrics – he coined the term – and author of the groundbreaking Baseball Abstract books. “Moneyball” does not exist without him. Neither does Baseball Prospectus…that help accent traditional analysis with concrete data.”[2]
[1] Bryant H. Juicing The Game: Drugs, Power and the Fight for the Soul of Major League Baseball. New York: Penguin Group; 2005. 249.
[2] Passan J. Re-examining the Hall. Cooperstown, New York: Yahoo! Sports: 2006 July 30. http://www.yahoosports.com Last Accessed: August 8, 2006.