Master Index of Archived Threads


Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2010 10:07 AM

Agree or disagree, he makes a compelling, lyrically-presented case. Even by JoePoz' own lofty standards, this one's a standout. (Don't know how I missed this the first time around-- thanks, AA, for "Fanshooting" this.) I won't post the entire thing, as the guy's hits numbers should be as high as possible... but you want to follow the link. A taste follows: In 1985, John Milner testified that there was some sort of “red juice” in Willie Mays locker when they both played for the Mets. Milner said that was a liquid amphetamine. Mays would say he got it from a doctor, and the doctor said it was actually cough syrup. There really isn’t any more clarity on that issue, but Mays does not deny that he may have used amphetamines as a player. In the book, his quote is as follows: “My problem was if I could stay on the field. I would go to the doctor and would say to the doctor, ‘Hey, I need something to keep me going. Could you give me some sort of vitamin?’ I don’t know what they put in there, and I never asked a question about anything.” Well … there you go. I don’t think there’s much question based on that quote that Mays used amphetamines in his day. Shoot, just about every player did. Pete Rose did. Hank Aaron admitted trying it. Hirsch, in his own words, believes there’s a big difference between steroids and amphetamines — the former, he says, builds muscle mass and enhances performance while the latter “restores energy and allows someone to perform at full strength.” That seems to be the argument. But I think there’s a much bigger difference: Steroids were not readily available when Willie Mays played ball.

metirish Mar 03 2010 10:42 AM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

It's a bit of a leap to imply that mays would have taken steroids if they were "readily available" when he played, certainly a bit unfair IMO. But Willie doesn't help himself in my book with the old " I didn't know and didn't ask what the doc was giving me" routine. Love Joe Poz.

Ceetar Mar 03 2010 12:11 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

[quote="metirish":30k9upaq]It's a bit of a leap to imply that mays would have taken steroids if they were "readily available" when he played, certainly a bit unfair IMO. But Willie doesn't help himself in my book with the old " I didn't know and didn't ask what the doc was giving me" routine. Love Joe Poz.[/quote:30k9upaq] I don't know if it was an old routine, maybe he was a pioneer in the "I didn't ask" comments. It's not a big leap actually. Players weren't "better people" in the "good old days". There is so much money involved now, that you can argue greed, but on the other hand, the older players weren't as set for life with one contract. They were just as likely to look for every edge they could get, legal or otherwise. The big difference is the further you go back, the less effective such tactics were. Corking bats has been suggested to be almost negliably effective, but it was a common method of cheating once. Spit balls, scuffing balls, stealing signs. If steroids were around in 1930, I'm sure the same percentage of baseball players would've taken it. Maybe more so, as we're more knowledgeable today about the health risks, and it's a lot easier to catch people given recordings and digital records.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2010 12:21 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

If it's a bit of a leap, that's because it's speculative and by definition is a bit of a leap. We can't put Willie or modern PEDs in a time machine, and he hasn't answered the question on the record (which itself would still be speculative). One big point which JP raises-- and, in my mind, hits, however fleeting that hit may be-- that seems to cause a lot of guys agita is an offshoot of the record-distortion issue: if steroids allow guys to put up monstrous power numbers, then how can we trust those numbers in relation to those of more competitively "honest" eras. JP posits: I don’t want to throw names out there, but there are records and performances — consecutive games played and huge stolen bases totals just as a for instance — that you could logically connect to amphetamine use. Coupled with the newly-questionable presumption that steroids/muscles are all that performance-enhancing, it's a nasty blow to the steroids-as-exceptional-brand-of-cheating premise.

Ceetar Mar 03 2010 12:26 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

And it's this history that makes me support everyone for the Hall of Fame. I know there is a thought to keep steroid guys out, but by singling out those that got caught you're passively condoning all those that cheated and didn't get caught, all those guys like Henderson Rose and Ripken that he mentions may have attained their records and fame by taking illegal substances.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2010 01:04 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

Players weren't "better people" in the "good old days". There is so much money involved now, that you can argue greed, but on the other hand, the older players weren't as set for life with one contract. They were just as likely to look for every edge they could get, legal or otherwise. Yup! If anything, the difference between set-for-life money and set-for-several-lives money isn't as tempting as was the 50K playing ball vs manual labor jobs that faced players decades ago. Also, the story about Mays and various mystery substances is hardly a new one.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 03 2010 01:07 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

[quote="Frayed Knot"]Also, the story about Mays and various mystery substances is hardly a new one.

It goes all the way back to Ball Four, if I'm not mistaken*.

*I know Bouton mentioned Mantle and "greenies" but I'm not sure if Mays was mentioned at all. Perhaps not, since Willie wasn't Bouton's teammate.

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2010 01:21 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

I don't remember that particular story being in 'Ball Four' (the one about Mays and his red juice I mean, greenies certainly were) but I've definitely heard/read it numerous times elsewhere and well prior to the steroid era.

metirish Mar 03 2010 01:41 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

Can't find anything online that references Mays in "Ball Four" but this article from "Time" dated 1985 during the coke trials has this. The Cocaine Agonies Continue By Richard Lacayo;Joseph N. Boyce/Pittsburgh Monday, Sep. 23, 1985 The man on trial was Accused Cocaine Dealer Curtis Strong, but it was major league baseball on the defensive last week as testimony continued in a Pittsburgh federal court. Four more players took the stand to say that Strong had been a matchmaker in their love affairs with cocaine. They also kept naming names, bringing to 21 the number of current and former players alleged in court to have used coke. Shockingly, perhaps unfairly, the sorry tale of illegal drug involvement stretched back through the years to touch two of the game's immortals: Willie Stargell and Willie Mays. Among the new names mentioned by the player-witnesses last week were former Pirate Pitchers Eddie Solomon and Manny Sarmiento, as well as Montreal Expo Outfielder Tim Raines and onetime Outfielder Rowland Office. The most disheartening charges to come out of the trial, however, concerned not coke but amphetamines. Yankee Third Baseman Dale Berra, Yogi's 28-year-old son, said that while playing with the Pirates he got green speed pills from former Team Captains Bill Madlock and Willie ("Pops") Stargell. Berra claimed he , could get a "greenie" from Stargell "on any given day that I asked him for one." Both Madlock and Stargell denied the accusation, which was made again on the stand two days later by Cincinnati Outfielder Dave Parker, a former Pirate. It was an unwelcome charge anywhere, but especially in Pittsburgh, where Stargell is beloved as the man who led the Pirates "family" to its 1979 World Series victory. "I can't believe that Willie would be involved in that," Pirates President Daniel Galbreath said to the Pittsburgh Post- Gazette. "In fact, I doubt he was." Retired Pirate John Milner offered more curious recollections of how he got greenies: they were placed anonymously inside his locker. "They were in my stall, that's all I know," he explained. As a sidelight, Milner also claimed to have seen some "red juice," a fruit juice and amphetamine concoction, in the locker of Willie Mays when both played for the New York Mets in the early '70s. "The Willie Mays?" asked Defense Attorney Adam Renfroe. "Willie Mays -- the great one," replied Milner. An angry Mays denied the charge, and his doctor told CBS that the red liquid was cough medicine. "It's a shame that a man can be crucified (by) one statement," said Mays. When they were not calmly identifying fellow players last week, the witnesses all claimed to have purchased cocaine from Strong, a former caterer for the Philadelphia Phillies. The jury heard claims that Strong had easy access to the Pirates' clubhouse and met with players in hotels. Lawyer Renfroe has struggled to cast his client as a little guy who has become the scapegoat for baseball's sins. The players, says Renfroe, are rich "hero junkies" who get immunity while his client goes on trial. Cross-examining Parker, he shouted derisively at one point, "How is it that once you get immunity that you're not going to jail and won't lose your $20,000 diamond rings, that you now remember?" Though U.S. Attorney J. Alan Johnson says he has called his last player- witness in the case, Renfroe plans to put more players on the stand when he begins his defense this week. Meanwhile, players are also expected to testify in the trial of another accused cocaine dealer, Robert McCue. Jury selection in that case is scheduled to start in Pittsburgh this week. Two other related cases involving alleged ballpark dealers are also pending. Baseball's days of shame could stretch into months. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 43,00.html

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2010 01:52 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

Another lightly-examined aspect of the late-90s HR binges (at least since the Mitchell Report/associated admissions or 'outings'): the effects of expansion. The screaming uptick in league HR numbers came right around the mid-90s, just after Colorado and Florida joined the league, and just a few years before Tampa and Arizona did the same... and the two biggest year-to-year spikes came in 1993 (3,038 total HRs to 4,030-- with a 700-HR increase alone in the NL) and 1998 (from 4,640 to 5,604). Adding 40 pitchers to the player pool-- the overwhelming majority of which were borderline or high-AA/AAA caliber-- might have done something to boost overall offensive performance during the time, no?

Frayed Knot Mar 03 2010 01:59 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

Yes - although you'd also have to account for more games being played rather than just look at the raw numbers. 1961 - the first expansion year ever - was also a big HR year (and hitters' year in general) as was the single largest expansion year ever in 1969, although that coincided with other more planned changes that were specifically put in to boost offense.

metirish Mar 03 2010 01:59 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

Expansion surely did expose a lot of borderline pitchers to big time hitters but I would think there was always plenty of rubbish pitchers in both leagues at all times. Expansion would have exposed plenty of rubbish hitters to decent pitchers too, right?....did SO go up , any way to tie the two together?

Ceetar Mar 03 2010 02:01 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

[quote="LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr":39vbv28d]Another lightly-examined aspect of the late-90s HR binges (at least since the Mitchell Report/associated admissions or 'outings'): the effects of expansion. The screaming uptick in league HR numbers came right around the mid-90s, just after Colorado and Florida joined the league, and just a few years before Tampa and Arizona did the same... and the two biggest year-to-year spikes came in 1993 (3,038 total HRs to 4,030-- with a 700-HR increase alone in the NL) and 1998 (from 4,640 to 5,604). Adding 40 pitchers to the player pool-- the overwhelming majority of which were borderline or high-AA/AAA caliber-- might have done something to boost overall offensive performance during the time, no?[/quote:39vbv28d] I spent some time thinking about some of this stuff a while back. It's not just expansion itself but the expanding bullpen so that their are more pitchers, relievers, actively pitching in games these days. Foul territory is shrinking, so their are less foul-outs extending ABs giving guys like Bonds another chance to connect. Stadiums are smaller. The mound was lowered at once point to give hitter's an advantage (that was a lot earlier) Same with the DH adding another real hitter to the lineups. The ball itself was treated better (and who knows what they do to the damn thing). Now the ball touches dirt and they toss it, but as you go further back this was less and less the case so that the balls would collect dust and mud an dirt and grime which created more spin and unpredictability that obviously favored pitchers. And there are unmeasurable factors as well. Home runs beget home runs as it becomes the way to hit. There are more high strike out high power guys in the league than ever before, something that wasn't as common before. This hitting philosophy is probably both cause and effect, as the dilution of the pitcher pool makes it have more success, so more people do it, hence more home runs.

Edgy DC Mar 03 2010 02:44 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

I don't make much of expansion. There's no real good reason to think of it giving jobs disproportionately to borderline pitchers versus borderline hitters. And I'm certain that the available population of players (and excellent players) has expanded at a pace that outstrips the expanison in the number of teams. If there are more relievers, it's largely because reasoning folks believe using more pitchers to be more effective than using fewer. Certainly, shrinking foul territory is a factor. How about mandatory military service. It's also always worth pointing out how missing two years in Korea cost Mays a run at Babe Ruth's home run record (though, even had he made it, he likely still would have been passed by Aaron shortly after). This is also relevant to Ted Williams.

G-Fafif Mar 03 2010 04:39 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

I found Posnanski a little off the mark here. Hamill's review of Hirsch's book was, like the book (and its subject) beautiful -- and his framing of Baseball Then vs. Baseball Now (or at least post-1957) is understandable in the context of who he is and where he's coming from. Posnanski says Hamill -- a Met-Lovin' Big Shot -- knows better regarding innocence; Posnanski should know better when it comes to the prism through which Hamill views or chooses to view those not altogether halcyon days. Goodness knows the book itself, through 130 or so pages anyway, is quite clear-eyed about the realities of the kind of racism that surrounded baseball and Mays. The "red juice" allegation would not have shown up in Ball Four as that particular revelation came from Milner's shared Met time with Mays, which postdated the publication of Bouton's book.

Edgy DC Mar 03 2010 06:56 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

What Ball Four revealed was a broad culture of players using their wives to get prescriptions for diet pills (speed), and sharing them in the clubhouse, and sucking them down before gametime to get a mental and physiological sharpness. A perceived one, anyhow. Probably not that different an effect from how players are (ab)using Red Bull these days. Bouton wrote of how rain delays screwed up the speed usage because players wouldn't be able to time their ingestions and would crash at the wrong time.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 03 2010 10:32 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

[quote="G-Fafif"]I found Posnanski a little off the mark here. Hamill's review of Hirsch's book was, like the book (and its subject) beautiful -- and his framing of Baseball Then vs. Baseball Now (or at least post-1957) is understandable in the context of who he is and where he's coming from. Posnanski says Hamill -- a Met-Lovin' Big Shot -- knows better regarding innocence; Posnanski should know better when it comes to the prism through which Hamill views or chooses to view those not altogether halcyon days.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that he's aiming at the wrong target (since Hamill is precisely the sort of guy who you'd expect to assay the Mays book through the it-was-a-different-and-magical-time prism), or that he's setting up a straw-man here? Or that he's giving Hamill too much credit? I mean, the man's tackled an assassin, was on Nixon's enemies list and seems to still consider himself first and foremost a journalist-chronicler... though it may be a little unrealistic or willfully stupid to expect a gimlet-eyed perspective on baseball history from him, you might reasonably expect a clear-eyed one, right?

G-Fafif Mar 03 2010 11:14 PM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

The book seemed to touch Hamill in a place he (Hamill) thought was no longer there, and I thought Posnanski was too hard on him for that. There are still loads of people around who never viewed baseball the same way after 1957 (I happened to speak to one in the past 24 hours). I can't be down on him or them for that "it was never the same" feeling. I'm sure it wasn't the same for them. How could have it been? Posnanski's not wrong that there have always been imperfections surrounding the game and that the game has always managed to transcend them, but I thought it was gratuitous to go after this review as he did.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Mar 04 2010 09:14 AM Re: Posnanski on Mays and Cheating.

Fair enough... especially when there are so many other writers he could rightfully use as an entry point into the same debate points (which, in and of itself, is sound and well-delivered). In retrospect, and in proper context, it seems a little like "Rebuttal in Search of an Argument." I still rather like the ending sentiment-- that "the game, for better and worse, is as beautiful now as it ever was." I think stripping away the hagiographic haze in which we sometimes shroud folks like Mays and Mantle and Ruth actually befits them-- that these were actual, bowlegged or too-short, deeply human men-- and not nimbus-encircled demigods-- performing like this makes their achievements all the more amazing. It also gives modern-day athletes the respect they deserve, I think.