Started By
Message

re: Nomar Garciaparra and steroids

Posted on 2/3/10 at 12:35 pm to
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
117512 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 12:35 pm to
quote:

he looks like any other guy who works out alot and eats right

+1
Age 30-35 is still an age where a male can put on a lot of muscle mass without steroids. As you approach 40, nope.
Posted by Perrenial Powerhouse
Madisonville, LA
Member since Jan 2006
3707 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 2:21 pm to
That cover was the beginning of the end for him in Boston
Posted by LfcSU3520
Arizona
Member since Dec 2003
24474 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 2:48 pm to
Posted by Perrenial Powerhouse
Madisonville, LA
Member since Jan 2006
3707 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 3:07 pm to
WOW! Bonds-like before/after
Posted by Bullethead88
Half way between LSU and Tulane
Member since Dec 2009
4202 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 3:58 pm to
Sorry to poke holes in your theory by bringing up statistics -- but this is baseball we're talking about.

From 1997 through 2003, Garciaparra averaged 532 at bats per season (including only 83 ABs in 2001 when he was hurt).

From 2004 through 2009, he averaged 277 ABs per season, or just 52% of the ABs he averaged between 1997-2003.

If he would have had the same number of ABs as he did during 1997-2003, and had the same HRs per AB ratio as he actually did from 2004-2009, he would have averaged 34 1/2 home runs per season from 2004-2009.


LINK
Posted by barry
Location, Location, Location
Member since Aug 2006
51395 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 4:13 pm to
quote:

Sorry to poke holes in your theory by bringing up statistics -- but this is baseball we're talking about.


quote:

If he would have had the same number of ABs as he did during 1997-2003, and had the same HRs per AB ratio as he actually did from 2004-2009, he would have averaged 34 1/2 home runs per season from 2004-2009.




Sorry, but you have some bad math somewhere. If you take the AB he had from 97-03(7 seasons) 3,725 and his HR/AB ratio from 04-09 .0315. Multiply them together and you get 117 HR's. Divide by 6 seasons and you get 20 a season.

ETA: Not to mention you are giving him the AB's for 7 seasons(97-03) and putting it into 6 seasons(04-09)

P.S. Boom, get the frick out of my thread.
This post was edited on 2/3/10 at 4:19 pm
Posted by Bullethead88
Half way between LSU and Tulane
Member since Dec 2009
4202 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 5:06 pm to
OK, I'll go slower for you.

I took his average AB's per season, from 1997-2003 and then again the average from 2004-2009. So if you take the average, it doesn't matter that one average was for 6 seasons and the other was 7. The average still gives proper weighting. Are you following me so far?

So he did average just 52% of the ABs from 2004-2009 that he averaged from 1997-2003.

Your post said he averaged 18 home runs from 2004-2009. So I extrapolated your 18 HRs from 04-09 and assumed he got 48% more bats in 04-09 to come up with 34 1/2 HRs per year.

My figuring was spot on.

Now, here was my problem. I assumed that you could divide 56 by 6. I was wrong.

quote:

From 04-09 he's hit 56 HR, averaging ~18 per 162


Your arithmetic was wrong. If he hit 56 home runs in 6 seasons from 04-09, that was 9.3 home runs per season, not 18 like you said in your post.

Next time, check your math before you post. Or have your mother check it for you.

BOOM.

Posted by Shankopotomus
Social Distanced
Member since Feb 2009
21087 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 5:10 pm to
quote:

but the big veins on both biceps? hmmm


yes, his cardiovascular system seems to be intact.
Posted by TexasTiger08
Member since Oct 2006
30053 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 5:18 pm to
quote:

And 04-09 was age 30-35 a time when smaller guys natually develop more power.


Naturally? You mean when guys like Bonds juiced up and started cranking them out of every park...

Naturally my arse. Naturally is when guys age and lose bat speed and thus, hit for less power.

quote:

From 97-03 he hit 169 HR, averaging ~30 per 162
From 04-09 he's hit 56 HR, averaging ~18 per 162


You know, he had some pretty significant injuries.

Also, Nomar was never known as a big power hitter. I mean, he had his share...but never a ridiculous amount.

So we knock guys for hitting more homers as they age, and now we are knocking guys for doing the opposite?
Posted by Bench McElroy
Member since Nov 2009
34684 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 5:32 pm to
quote:

You know, he had some pretty significant injuries


How do you think he got all those injuries? Nomar became way too bulky and muscular probably from using steroids and his body started to break down. I'm really surprised that he hasn't been outed yet.
Posted by TexasTiger08
Member since Oct 2006
30053 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 6:20 pm to
pretty sure one of them came when he took a fastball off his wrist...
Posted by Bench McElroy
Member since Nov 2009
34684 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 6:34 pm to
The Reyes fastball off his wrist was just one injury. He had a lot of muscle injuries (strained muscles, muscle tears, etc..) which happens when you add a lot of muscle too quickly...
Posted by ThePlumber
NOLA
Member since Jul 2005
970 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 9:36 pm to
quote:

From 04-09 he's hit 56 HR, averaging ~18 per 162


quote:

Your arithmetic was wrong. If he hit 56 home runs in 6 seasons from 04-09, that was 9.3 home runs per season, not 18 like you said in your post.

Next time, check your math before you post.

Or have your mother check it for you. BOOM.


Did you even read what he said? 18 home runs per 162 games, not season. Jesus.
Posted by NHTIGER
Central New Hampshire
Member since Nov 2003
16188 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 10:12 pm to
quote:

righties hitting at Fenway will tend to have massively inflated stats due to the short left porch



Inflated slugging percentages, yes - inflated home run figures, absolutely not. Been watching games in Fenway since 1957 and it's always been that way. Over the course of a season, that 37-foot wall takes away just as many homers as the short porch creates. Height and distance cancel each other out.

It should be noted that Garciaparra had a higher career slugging pct. in his Red Sox years than guys like Jim Rice, David Ortiz, Dwight Evans and Fred Lynn and Carl Yastrzemski.

In the last 60+ years, a very limited number of guys (other than one-season wonders)- Rice, Evans, Ramirez, Armas and (in a shortened career) Conigliaro - made their marks as RH home run hitters at Fenway, with Rice & Evans in a virtual tie for the career leader for RH hitters.

The Wall's only advantage to Boston over the years is their left-fielders master the carom , thus often holding would-be doubles to long singles, or stopping runners from scoring from 2nd bases on hard-hit balls off the darn thing.



Posted by Bullethead88
Half way between LSU and Tulane
Member since Dec 2009
4202 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 11:00 pm to
Below is an excerpt from a Peter Gammons ESPN.com article defending Garciaparra.


"If a player is thrown into the public stocks by hypothetical or deductive guesswork, he is damaged, with little recourse. There is no better example than Nomar Garciaparra. His famous Sports Illustrated cover was quickly thrown up as 'roid proof when he got hurt in spring training 2001. Now, any Gold's Gym bodybuilder and trainer will take that picture and point to the fact that he's developed in but two places and actually has love handles, a surefire sign that he is not a juicer. "That," says Mark Verstegen of Athletes Performance Institute and Garciaparra's trainer going back to Georgia Tech, "was the worst shape he was ever in."

Verstegen bristles at the Garciaparra question because he knows Nomar better than anyone. For a decade, Nomar has been going to API in Bradenton, Fla.; Tempe, Ariz.; and, at the Home Depot Center this winter, in Carson, Calif. And, like anyone and everyone who trains at API, he has to sign an ethics statement and adhere to Verstegen's program to provide an ethical alternative to cheating, a program that has been adopted by the National Football League.

Verstegen -- who says a person can gain 1½ to 2 pounds of muscle mass a week in his program of core strength exercise, weights and strict nutrition (Nomar is a vanilla shake guy) -- insists "that Nomar never had any dramatic weight gains in an offseason. He went from 163 to 167 to 174 to 182 to 195 (pounds), and is now back at 185. But he has to deal with idle speculation? It is completely unfair and irresponsible." Sitting there, hurt, Garciaparra has no way to answer."
Posted by JBennett
LSU Campus Area
Member since Feb 2010
207 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 11:28 pm to
quote:

If a player is thrown into the public stocks by hypothetical or deductive guesswork, he is damaged, with little recourse.


I agree with this.

And I think it was a bit unreasonable that he got so much heat for it when that cover was released. I really feel like his name would have been released already. He had to have been part of the anonymous testing with Papi and Manny. He's clean in my book, and one of my favorite Red Sox of all time.
Posted by wahoocs
Lafayette, LA
Member since Nov 2004
24898 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 11:43 pm to
Bagwell and Biggio are two of my all-time favorites, but it doesn't affect my belief they used steroids.

It is what it is. I don't blame Bonds for what he did. He was a better athlete than Sosa and McGwire, why should they reap all the awards, benefits, and attention?

It was an era, and it's not over. They are taking better steps to prevent it now. I know for a fact how serious things are in the minors. They're going to do their best to eradicate it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't prevalent through the 2000's.

Go back and look at Garciaparra's picture on the Olympic team posted by Bmac. Is that picture pre-puberty? I mean, do you really think that kind of change can happen naturally at that age?

For the record, I like Garciaparra and don't care either way. I would love to see Pujols voluntarily take a test midseason to validate his accomplishments. IMO, if he is clean, he has everything to gain. He will go down as the best hitter of all time.
Posted by JBennett
LSU Campus Area
Member since Feb 2010
207 posts
Posted on 2/3/10 at 11:59 pm to
quote:

do you really think that kind of change can happen naturally at that age


Not without and intense diet and workout routine, but yes. It wasn't as big as it seems-the picture was blown out of proportion. I doubt most big players from that era, but Nomah is one I continue to stand behind. I've been wrong before, though. It was just part of the game during that time (and still is like you mentioned). But I'll be apalled if it turns out he was using.
Posted by Bullethead88
Half way between LSU and Tulane
Member since Dec 2009
4202 posts
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:01 am to
Also from the Peter Gammons article, this time defending Bagwell from steroid accusations.

We do know that some players are smaller, and there have been conclusions drawn. In Boston, one sportswriter went on television and used Jeff Bagwell as an example of someone whose size decreased after drug testing. Of course, the person didn't know that Bagwell hadn't been able to lift a weight for nearly four years because of chronic arthritis in his shoulder, but there were viewers who accepted it as fact rather than unaccountable non-fiction.
Posted by AreJay
Member since Aug 2005
4186 posts
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:05 am to
quote:

"Those 28-year-olds, by the way, might have the best stat line of the bunch; that is, if the 31-year-olds don't. Suffice to say, from the chart above, it's clear a player's prime runs about six or seven years, from ages 26 through 32. "


Not per this guy's 'analysis'--but he is proud of himself.

first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram