Suspicious
My rule: if someone had a big drop in his power numbers after steroid testing began, that's my prima facie case that he's guilty of having used them in the past. (I'm using, as usual, the Merriam-Webster's definitions, not American Heritage's. Any college graduate with A-H and no other dictionary in his or her house should be embarrassed.)
Next defendant: J.T. Snow. At 37, he slugged .529. Last year, at 38, he slugged .365. Doubles dropped from 32 to 17, homers dropped from 12 to 4.
And, yes, I'm similarly inclined toward (er, against) Mike Lowell.
Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.
Next defendant: J.T. Snow. At 37, he slugged .529. Last year, at 38, he slugged .365. Doubles dropped from 32 to 17, homers dropped from 12 to 4.
And, yes, I'm similarly inclined toward (er, against) Mike Lowell.
Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong.
posted by Josh at
Thursday, February 23, 2006
3 Comments:
How do you prove a negative? Unless there is frozen urine from J.T. Snow's 27th year of life, that is. But plenty of players fall off in production at age 38. I'll grant you that it doesn't look good, but it's just too small of a sample size.
By
dl004d, at 6:05 PM
That looks more like an outlier than evidence of steroid usage. Ignoring David's point about your logical error*, your point seems strangely discrete: why would he only use for one year? He has one other high OBP+ season and it was nine years ago.
* Even a frozen urine sample would not prove the negation: you can't disprove that sort of claim because there are an infinite number of infitesimal slices of time in "the past" you would need urine from. And no one can pee like that.
By
Anonymous, at 8:12 PM
But we're all in agreement about Lowell, right?
By
Josh, at 9:03 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home