Jayhawk Bill

1) I notice that you've resorted to name-calling. 2) Your GPA example was either intentionally misleading or ignorant. It illustrated nothing--that's why I posted that it displayed a core misunderstanding. Your protest suggests that your misunderstanding has not been corrected. 3) "Off year?" "Every other stat?" Let's check Lowell's FRAR by year over his entire career: [table]AGE | YEAR | FRAR 24 | 1998 | 0 25 | 1999 | 10 26 | 2000 | 17 27 | 2001 | 33 28 | 2002 | 27 29 | 2003 | 9 30 | 2004 | 26 31 | 2005 | 27 32 | 2006 | 34 33 | 2007 | 27[/table] Looks as if 2007 was a tie for third-best season by Lowell by FRAR...hardly an off year. 4) Why do you insult me and then try to say that the "conversation has gone on way too long?"

Dunno...if you say, "Don't get me wrong, there are stil racists in this country, and racism still exists," then my quote out of context that you chose--"Heritage may be a factor"--doesn't sound too different than what you're admitting. I don't dispute that. Hey, I posted, "He was a prick way back in his NCAA days, and I expect that he's still got some of that going today." But why is Sheffield getting so much of an easier time? Gary Sheffield is a violent f***ing *******. Google and you get 17 hits. Google and you get 3,760 hits. It's not even close. How about flaming ******* Roger Clemens? 204 hits. Well, I guess that Sheffield can't pull out the race card. But it's still about 6% of the abuse that Bonds gets. I think that it's the media, plus the record, plus MLB and the MLBPA making him a scapegoat. Race may possibly play a factor--it's tough to say, because there are so few comparables to Bonds. But there are lots of jerks in the Mitchell Report. Bonds is taking a disproportionate share of the heat. IMO. YMMV.

No. I would agree that SOME of the hatred for Bonds is his own doing. He was a prick way back in his NCAA days, and I expect that he's still got some of that going today. But the media has been cruel to Barry Bonds, right from the start in his Pittsburgh days, and there's no reason that McGwire and Sosa should've been lionized while Bonds was viewed more cynically. Things only got worse--I've yet to see any major media outlet comment that Bonds's character was smeared by a highly illegal leak of grand jury testimony, and I've read lots of coverage highly critical of Bonds's own character. When there are two true sides to a story, and only one is reported, it's a sign of bias. Bonds is a victim of that bias--maybe not a sympathetic victim, but a victim. Much of the public's hatred of Bonds stems from that media coverage. *** TheKilo, you're a student of the game. How would you expect the son of Bobby Bonds to grow up? Bobby Bonds was an unheralded superstar, shuttled by trade from pitcher's ballpark to pitcher's ballpark so fast that he never generated a fan base after leaving San Francisco, and because he played in low-scoring home fields just after the Second Deadball Era, it wasn't until some years after he retired that people realized that he had put together a career just shy of HOF consideration in only 14 years. I personally believe that Barry Bonds was chasing the glory that he believed that his father should've earned, and I believe that he got fed up when Canseco and Clemens and Sosa and McGwire were hogging the spotlight. If so, that doesn't make steroid abuse right (and I certainly believe that Bonds abused steroids). It may, however, offer a better perspective than that of an arrogant rich man deciding that his tens of millions weren't enough and that he'd break the law to get more money, to get more fame, and to make other people look bad. Either perspective may be true. I lean in the direction of forgiving those who used PEDs, given that MLB and the MLBPA had collaborated to implicitly condone their use, and that any given player couldn't easily fight both the owners and the union. I certainly understand others' harsher perspectives, too.

Why wasn't Clemens ever asked to testify regarding steroid use? He appears to have information, just as Bonds and Sheffield and Giambi apparently did once upon a time. Why not get him to testify now regarding his suppliers, under oath--or to deny steroid use under oath? While we're at it, why isn't Palmeiro being brought up on perjury charges for lying under oath to Congress? He's actually tested positive for steroids--all that exists for Bonds is allegations of use. Why did the inquiry into potential perjury stop with the decision that the drug test he failed didn't reflect blood levels prior to testimony, with no investigation of prior teammates and trainers? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43422-2005Mar17.html I still see Bonds as a scapegoat. YMMV.

If one takes the estimated runs and runs allowed based upon the estimated run value of each event (walks, hits, errors, putouts, etc.), and if one figures wins from that based on Pythag, here are the 2007 NL West final standings: [table]Team | Runs | Runs Allowed | Wins | Losses Rockies | 856 | 767 | 90 | 73 Dodgers | 752 | 692 | 87 | 75 Padres | 710 | 682 | 85 | 78 Giants | 688 | 715 | 78 | 84 Diamondbacks | 708 | 739 | 78 | 84[/table] http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php For contrast, the Red Sox would have scored 906 runs and allowed 677 runs by this method. The D-Back's pitching is certainly good. Their offense is roughly three MVP-caliber hitters short of Boston's, further short of the Yankees', and better than maybe a mere half-dozen cellar-dwelling-type teams in all of MLB. The Diamondbacks had the NL Manager of the Year and a huge slug of luck to reach the NLDS. Barring that sort of luck again next year, don't expect to see them in October baseball.

Has Mitchell initiated legal action or employer disciplinary action, or has he merely investigated an issue? I'm not sure that I understand your point.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6995 Charging? Dunno. :dunno: Bud Selig may, however, attempt to discipline named players despite lack of the specific evidence required by the Basic Agreement.

Mere records, not sacred records. C'mon... 61* 714 Everybody knew those.

Heritage may be a factor. If I may add another, it's that Clemens didn't amass 512 wins or 5,715 strikeouts. Bonds broke the all-time home run record, and he's perceived to have cheated to do it. He broke the single-season home run record as well. Clemens has put together one of the ten-best pitching careers ever, IMO, but he didn't break a sacred record.

Hmmm. Buster is outraged. Let's look at those names. Brian Roberts: Allegedly started using steroids in 2003. Gained 70 OPS points from 2002-2003 in AAA; gained 99 OPS points in MLB those same two years. Roberts's XBH production increased astoundingly from 2003-2005. In 2003 he had 26 doubles and triples. In 2004 he had 52, exactly twice as many. His home runs went from 5 in 2003 to 4 in 2004 to 18 in 2005. Of those 18 HR, 15 came in the first half, and only three came after the news broke that Rafael Palmeiro had tested positive for stanozolol. Robert's OPS for that first half of 2005, 1.007, is 156 points higher than he had ever managed before or since for a half-season of full-time MLB play. He had attributed the gain to his new contact lenses...perhaps he has lost them. Matt Franco: Matt Franco was a utility infielder who allegedly bought steroids in 2000, the year he was released by the Mets and resigned as a minor-league player. Franco hit for an OPS of between .726 and .730 in each of three years 1997-99 at ages 27-29. He returned to MLB in 2002, hitting .317/.395/.517 for a .912 OPS at age 32, his peak level of performance. Very few players reach a normal peak at age 27 and another, higher peak at age 32 after being released unconditionally instead of being offered arbitration. Franco was such a player. Jack Cust: Jack Cust was allegedly using steroids in 2003. Checking his MiLB stats, he could've been using them since Rookie League, or even since kindergarten: there's no sudden spike. The saddle curve dip in his stats coincides with his moving from Colorado Springs in the PCL to Ottawa in the IL, so league and park factors could explain it. Frankly, although Cust looks as if he's juiced, there's nothing in the record to suggest it statistically. Mark Carreon: Allegedly received steroids in 1996 while with the Giants. Carreon peaked at age 25 as a corner outfielder, but then languished for three seasons before being traded to the Giants. Carreon hit a new, higher peak from ages 29-31 with the Giants. Then he was traded to Cleveland, where he hit .324/.385/.451 until August 23, where he went 2-5, was replaced by Jeff Kent in extra innings, and then never played again. Carreon's career showed both a saddle curve and a late peak, as well as a surprisingly swift decline. (I can't even find that he ever went on the DL...he seems to have just gotten benched while on a hot streak, probably because of some injury very close to roster expansion time. I can't help but wonder if it might have been steroid-related.) Todd Williams: Allegedly received steroids in 2001. Williams hit his career peak very late at age 34 with the 2005 Baltimore Orioles. Phil Hiatt: Allegedly received steroids in 2001. Hiatt, a career journeyman, had an early peak around age 24 and a later, higher peak in 2001 at age 32. The career showed both a saddle curve and a late peak. Todd Pratt: Allegedly received steroids in 2001. Pratt posted his best hitting stats as a rookie in 1992-93 at ages 25 and 26, although he received more playing time in his later twenties. He hit .185/.327/.301 in 2001, the year of alleged steroids purchase. The next year, 2002, Pratt hit .311/.449/.500, hitting a new career peak. Pratt's career has a very late peak at age 35, as well as a saddle curve. Mike Stanton: Stanton allegedly received hGH in 2003. Stanton's peak came two years earlier at age 34, and Stanton pitched very effectively through age 39, although he was less effective after his 40th birthday this past season. Stanton had a very late peak as a pitcher. *** Look, the only guy he's cited who doesn't have some bizarre trend in his career performance curve is Cust, and Cust has the phenotype of a steroid abuser nailed perfectly. I see this article as similar to Nate Silver's: they want the baseball audience to question the report and to question accusations of steroid use because they fear a loss of revenue for and interest in MLB. If one looks at the careers in question, all of these players had something weird going on, and the accusations of PED use could explain the oddities.

Hawkins's 2007 PECOTA chart, forecasting his level of performance for the next five years: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/images/hawkila01_004.gif Hawkins had a 4.44 FIP in the NL West last season. I'll be eager to see how that translates to the AL East with one more year's wear and tear on his pitching arm.

Nate Silver, BP Unfiltered: This may be the worst, most misleading blurb that Nate Silver has written in his career. It has all the marks of spin, and I notice that every writer at BP is using the report to somehow minimize the issue of steroids and other PEDs in baseball, too. Let's revisit those 88 names. Is there anything that distinguishes the listed players from other MLB players? First let's look at the 88 players and eliminate those who were marginal MLB players and who played in only a handful of games: Paxton Crawford Mike Bell Bart Miadich Mike Judd Alex Cabrera Ryan Jorgensen Cody McKay Adam Riggs OK, right off the bat we have something: individuals caught by the Mitchell Report tended to be long-term MLB players. This starkly contrasts with random testing, which catches mostly marginal players. Granted, I've included players with over a mere 162 MLB games as long-term players--but how else to describe Tim Laker, for example, who played in 281 MLB games from 1992 to 2006? Next, let's look at pitchers. I checked for two things for each player: 1) Peak age 2) Saddle curve of performance Peak age combines best rate stats with best counting stats. A saddle curve is a dual peak of performance, separated by at least one full substandard year significantly differing from the two peaks. Both of these are slightly subjective, but I'll post here my findings so that you may challenge them if you choose: [table]Name | Peak Age | Saddle Curve Rick Ankiel | 20 | Y Ismael Valdes | 23 | Y Jim Parque | 24 | N John Rocker | 24 | N Steve Woodard | 24 | N Ricky Bones | 25 | N Dan Naulty | 26 | N Eric Gagne | 27 | N Scott Schoeneweis | 27 | N Derrick Turnbow | 27 | N Jason Christiansen | 28 | N Denny Neagle | 28 | N Ricky Stone | 28 | N Darren Holmes | 29 | Y Kent Mercker | 29 | Y Stephen Randolph | 29 | N Ron Villone | 29 | Y Ryan Franklin | 30 | N Matt Herges | 30 | N Kevin Brown | 31 | N Paul Byrd | 31 | N Brendan Donnelly | 31 | N Jason Grimsley | 33 | Y Josias Manzanillo | 33 | Y Andy Pettitte | 33 | Y Roger Clemens | 34 | Y Mike Stanton | 34 | N Todd Williams | 34 | Y[/table] Most MLB pitchers peak between ages 25 and 26. (Rany Jazayerli, 2002). These pitchers peak, as a group, at 28.6 years of age. Saddle curves are a bit unusual; 10 of the 28 pitchers have saddle curves. Let's look at position players. Using hitting stats only, here's what we have: [table]Name | Peak Age | Saddle Curve Jose Canseco | 23 | Y Troy Glaus | 23 | Y Chad Allen | 24 | Y Phil Hiatt | 24 | Y Adam Piatt | 24 | N Bobby Estalella | 25 | N Jerry Hairston | 25 | Y Tim Laker | 25 | Y Nook Logan | 25 | N Manny Alexander | 26 | Y Larry Bigbie | 26 | N Jay Gibbons | 26 | Y Chris Donnels | 27 | Y Jeremy Giambi | 27 | N Todd Hundley | 27 | Y Chuck Knoblauch | 27 | Y Armando Rios | 27 | N Brian Roberts | 27 | N Gary Sheffield | 27 | Y Rondell White | 27 | Y Matt Williams | 27 | Y Jack Cust | 28 | N Juan Gonzalez | 28 | Y Jose Guillen | 28 | Y F.P. Santangelo | 28 | Y Miguel Tejada | 28 | N Mo Vaughn | 28 | N Marvin Benard | 29 | N Jason Giambi | 29 | Y Mike Lansing | 29 | N Paul Lo Duca | 29 | Y Fernando Vina | 29 | N Gary Bennett | 30 | N Howie Clark | 30 | N Lenny Dykstra | 30 | Y Glenallen Hill | 30 | N Kevin Young | 30 | N David Bell | 31 | Y Mark Carreon | 31 | Y David Justice | 31 | Y Gary Matthews | 31 | N Hal Morris | 31 | N Benito Santiago | 31 | Y Matt Franco | 32 | Y Ken Caminiti | 33 | N Todd Pratt | 33 | Y David Segui | 33 | Y Mark McGwire | 34 | Y Rafael Palmeiro | 34 | Y Gregg Zaun | 34 | Y Barry Bonds | 36 | Y Randy Velarde | 36 | Y[/table] Hitters peak at age 27. These players, as a group, peak at age 28.7. Of the 52, 32 have performance saddle curves. Let's say that any position player who peaked at age 28 or later, or pitcher who peaked at age 27 or later, or any player with a saddle curve, showed something suspicious of PED use. Exempting the eight marginal MLB players, here's the list of "surprises:" Adam Piatt Bobby Estalella Nook Logan Larry Bigbie Jeremy Giambi Armando Rios Brian Roberts Jim Parque John Rocker Steve Woodard Ricky Bones Dan Naulty That's 12 out of 80 named players. The performance of 68 of the 80 long-term MLB players on the list was suspicious. What would be most suspicious would be the combination of a late peak and a saddle curve. Let's look at those names: Darren Holmes Kent Mercker Ron Villone Jason Grimsley Josias Manzanillo Andy Pettitte Roger Clemens Todd Williams Juan Gonzalez Jose Guillen F.P. Santangelo Jason Giambi Paul Lo Duca Lenny Dykstra David Bell Mark Carreon David Justice Benito Santiago Matt Franco Todd Pratt David Segui Mark McGwire Rafael Palmeiro Gregg Zaun Barry Bonds Randy Velarde Based upon stats alone, we've fingered Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Juan Gonzalez, Jason Giambi, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds. *** Look, if Nate Silver had said that he'd tried identifying who would be on the Mitchell List using stats and failed, that would be one thing. He isn't; he's saying that one could not have known without any attempt at research. I'm saying that we've known for years that late peaks or saddle curves were indicative of PED use, and that the intellectual dishonesty of those who refused to accept that without proof now extends to denying it despite the proof.

I guess that MLB Trade Rumors got the idea from the linked article by Davidoff, missing a critical line, bolded below: Ken Davidoff is a sportwriter who trusts his opinions and his friends opinions. His first paragraph quoted above is opinion, not fact. Rob Neyer, I guy I respect, has had at least one run-in with Davidoff. Neyer favors facts, IMO. I think that Davidoff goes out on limbs too much, and that he's done it again in this article. Those last two quoted paragraphs Davidoff wrote I'd concur with. I don't think that there's much chance of Clemens coming back to Boston, though: Theo and the FO gave him a great shot at being part of the 2007 team and he ran off to the Yankees, where he had both pitching trouble and injury trouble. Now he's cited in the Mitchell Report. Frankly, I can't see any team except for the Yankees or the Astros even being interested at this point, and I think that Boston would be interested least of all. But that's just my opinion...I've got one, Davidoff's got one.

I thought that I'd weigh in here because I was involved in this genesis of this discussion. Concur. Concur. RZR has more merit than fielding percentage because it counts outs, not just errors. RZR and OOZ are paired stats, and for a best-available picture one would consider both. I guess some of the issue is the apples-and-oranges nature of RZR and OOZ. RZR is a rate stat, while OOZ is a counting stat. We can try to equalize that by assuming that each player had a chance to make OOZ plays at the same rate as in-zone plays, creating an Out-of-Zone Rate (OOZR = OOZ/BIZ) and an RZR+OOZR stat, a comprehensive rate metric. Here's how qualifying AL third basemen would look with such a stat: [table]Name | RZR + OOZR Glaus | 0.941 Inge | 0.883 Beltre | 0.869 Mora | 0.855 Gordon | 0.848 Rodriguez | 0.821 Lowell | 0.819 Blake | 0.793 Iwamura | 0.789[/table] It's no surprise that Mike Lowell drops down. His fielding range is primarily forward, not lateral. He's the best in MLB, IMO, at fielding bunts and weak ground balls that often convert into infield hits. When one considers lateral range, Lowell should probably drop further ordinally than any other third baseman. A combined RZR + OOZR is a useful stat. Should he drop this much, from first to seventh? Probably not. We made an assumption that OOZ plays come at the same rate as in-zone plays. But THT publishes a stat for annual infield OOZ plays by team. Let's check our assumption against that list: [table]Team | Inf OOZ TOR | 255 OAK | 216 TEX | 215 BAL | 206 MIN | 203 LAA | 202 KC | 201 SEA | 200 DET | 197 CLE | 187 NYA | 186 TB | 186 BOS | 171 CHA | 169[/table] Holy cow! No wonder Glaus looks so good: his opportunity to make OOZ plays looks to be roughly 50% better than it would be were he playing for Boston or Chicago. Let's consider team OOZ opportunities to be the OOZ plays by team's infield less the player's opportunities, and let's define adjusted OOZR as equal to OOZR x (league-average OOZ opportunities/team OOZ opportunities) and look at that: [table]Name | RZR + Adj OOZR Inge | 0.910 Beltre | 0.897 Glaus | 0.882 Mora | 0.852 Gordon | 0.844 Rodriguez | 0.839 Lowell | 0.826 Iwamura | 0.799 Blake | 0.790[/table] First, Troy Glaus once again looks mortal. Inge is the best third baseman in the AL. Lowell remains seventh-best. This still isn't ideal, and it's frustrating that THT (well, BIS, their data source) has the actual number of adjacent-zone plays for each third baseman. With that information, we could create an actual RZR + OOZR stat that didn't rely upon any assumptions for its OOZR computation. But look back at that original RZR + OOZR rate. Excepting Glaus, the ordinal rankings of third basemen didn't budge much. I went through all of this to address the obvious challenge that Glaus simply isn't better than Inge. Again, RZR + OOZR is a useful stat. Cam, I think that this is where we differ. It makes little to no difference how many errors Inge or Beltre had. What matters is how many balls in play they did or didn't turn into outs. Remember that the value of an error pretty closely equates to that of a single? An error is just another ball in play where the runner reached base. Minimizing those situations is the job of the defense. In particular, though, judging third base defense by error count can be deceiving. Here are the qualifying AL third basemen, ranked by fielding percentage: [table]Last | FPct | RZR + OOZR Iwamura | 0.975 | 0.789 Mora | 0.971 | 0.855 Glaus | 0.967 | 0.941 Rodriguez | 0.965 | 0.821 Blake | 0.962 | 0.793 Gordon | 0.961 | 0.848 Lowell | 0.961 | 0.819 Inge | 0.959 | 0.883 Beltre | 0.958 | 0.869[/table] By fielding percentage, the rate stat for errors, Iwamura becomes the best third baseman in the AL. By evaluating of converting balls in play into outs, he's worst. Inge and Beltre are worst by fielding percentage. They're two of the three best at turning balls in play into outs. Lastly, evaluating fielding by counting errors understates the value of defense. The range from best to worst among qualifying AL third basemen by error count is just 11 plays over the course of the last season. The difference in total plays between Inge and Iwamura was 140 plays. Rate stats describe the differences more accurately and precisely, but the difference in counting stats hits home better. If one player had 140 more hits than another, you'd better believe that we'd notice. Evaluating defense with fielding percentage conceals that difference. And your example here displays your core misunderstanding of what ORS is trying to communicate. Here's the real analogy: let's define an academic error as a complete brain fart, such as being the only student in the class to miss a particular question. Let's say that ksushi makes two such errors in a typical semester, but that he made six this semester. Was it his worst semester? I dunno. :dunno: It could be that ksushi was so far ahead of his class that his perspectives exceeded those of his classmates, and that he was reading too much into those six questions. Maybe he got a 4.00 semester regardless. The GPA is what matters, and while six questions per semester might affect the GPA, the other several hundred questions are overwhelmingly more important than the six "stupid error" questions. Likewise, errors don't make a fielder's GPA. The fielder's ability to turn balls in play into outs is what matters. Hope that this helped.

For the record, I haven't recommended persecuting, prosecuting. or otherwise punishing any player, excepting those whose actions involving PEDs are in violation of the Basic Agreement.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00019.htm The Secretary of Human Services has not approved hGH for treatment of elbow injuries. Pettitte's actions were illegal. Uniform Player's Contract, incorporated explicitly as a part of the Basic Agreement: Use of illegal hGH breaches Article 3.(a) of any MLB player's contract, including Andy Pettitte's. Pettitte's actions were wrong. Furthermore, his statement that hGH use was permitted is wrong: its explicit inclusion in 2005 prohibited its scheduled use, but the Basic Agreement already permitted prohibited its illegal use.

Arizona has traded away first baseman Chris Carter two times in four months.

This had nothing to do with steroids. It had everything to do with him hitting .230. It was a way for the Yankees to get out of the salary, nothing more or less. If he was hitting .300 with 40 homers, you wouldn't have heard a peep from the Yankees front office. Perhaps, but that's speculation. My point is that they used the steroid issue to try to void a contract. Honesty backfired. IMO, the MLBPA noticed...I don't recall any player whose name was listed coming forth before rumors of his steroid use broke in order to come clean, thereby to be forgiven. *** An interesting passage: That was a statement of fact: "many" players have shifted to hGH.

More like being forced out at second base so that the go-ahead run can hopefully score from third without notice. He's not taking one for the team in the sense of a sacrifice bunt: he didn't voluntarily give himself up. He was subpoened and forced to testify. The Federal Government failed in their obligation to keep the testimony secret, and the information released had terrible damage to Bonds's public image and earning potential. Furthermore, the media spin singled out Bonds--of all of those testifying and claiming ignorance--as guilty of perjury. Yielding to public opinion, the Attorney General chose to indict Bonds--and within MLB, only Bonds--for perjury. Perjury trials are comparatively rare. The verdicts handed down in Federal trials every working day strongly suggest that the judge or jury believe that somebody lied under oath. Last year there were 87,238 people charged with crimes in Federal Court. Only 62 perjury cases were brought, fewer than a tenth of a percent of all cases.* When I consider those who are lying in Federal Courts to protect murderers, drug dealers, and other heinous felons, I cannot conceive of any system under which one of the top hundred perjury trials to bring to court would be that of a guy who claimed ignorance regarding his past personal drug use. Folks, people lie about their past drug use every day...this trial is worthless, except insofar as it distracts the public from the point that the MLB and the MLBPA managed to permit rampant drug use to restore ticket sales and broadcast ratings after the mid-1990's strike. McGwire and Sosa battling to break Maris's record created enthusiasm...the less-likable Bonds, who showed what he could do, too, was made the scapegoat. I see the perjury trial as a very expensive way of making Bonds a scapegoat for MLB, the MLBPA, and for other steroid abusers. I respect, certainly, those who feel otherwise. * Case statistics from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/16/sports/s115151S09.DTL

ORS, the context of Big Papi's remarks made it clear that he thought that he'd used steroids. My apologies for not having a link handy. I concur with your description--I merely add that the situation of those words within the discussion was important to their meaning. I suspect, however, that LOTS of athletes take, inject or apply stuff without ascertaining what they're taking. A close acquaintance of mine works in pharmacy: people usually have no idea what they're taking, except for dosing instructions and desired effects. Athletes may be more sensitive to career risks now than they were back in the early 1990's, but before the hype over steroids in baseball I don't think that topical creams would've necessarily attracted more scrutiny from many athletes than Icy Hot would've. Now, if (hypothetically) Clemens watched Canseco shoot steroids, got some himself and injected them himself, it's it little less plausible to deny that he knew that he was doing something wrong...

As Scott Boras astutely points out, the listed individuals (or especially the rumored-to-be-listed individuals) haven't failed drug tests under the collective bargaining agreement, nor have they been convicted of anything in a court of law where rules of evidence apply. My guess is that everybody shows up next February except for the few scapegoats such as Barry Bonds. YMMV.