Obviously, he’s using steroids to improve his left eye.
I was being sarcastic. No one has any evidence of steroid use. They won’t admit this, of course.
Los Angeles IS baseball heaven, BTW.
Chicago is baseball purgatory.
Sammy was acquired by the Cubs straight up for George Bell from the White Sox when Larry Himes was the GM for the Cubs (and had been the GM with the Sox when they picked up Sosa from the Rangers - our prez okayed that deal!). Sosa’s change from striking out 150+ times a year to his current status was accomplished simply through plate discipline. He was always a strong hitter, able to muscle a ball out of the park, but he swung at everything, a la Rob Deer or Richie Sexon. He’s cut down on the K’s, and that’s afforded him more chances at homering. So there.
For all you statistical nerds (and I know you baseball lot are,) here’s a little table I came up with. It’s not exactly a slugging percentage table, but what percent of hits end up as homeruns. I compared Sosa’s statistics with the NL average. (Yes, I know he was with the ChiSox in '90 and '91. I got lazy.)
The reason I though this may be interesting is that, yes, of course a higher batting average will give you more homers. Batting average is not improved by steroids (IMHO.) Sammy has undeniably become a better hitter after his second or so year with the Cubs. There’s a reason we used to call him “Strike-out Sammy” in the neighborhood. Also, you’ll note that he’s always been well above the league average in homeruns/hits percentages. Also, you’ll note the great increase in the HR/H average through the last decade in the National League.
I don’t think these numbers prove anything either way. I think they’re fascinating to look at.
And, yeah, his two-finger salute is a sign for his mother. I think that’s pretty sweet, though it seems some of y’all find it annoying. Oh well.
Percentage of hits as homers
Year Sosa NL Avg.
1990 12.0% 9.0%
1991 15.6% 8.7%
1992 11.8% 7.6%
1993 21.2% 9.5%
1994 19.5% 10.4%
1995 23.8% 10.5%
1996 29.4% 10.9%
1997 22.4% 10.7%
1998 33.3% 11.0%
1999 35.0% 12.1%
2000 26.0% 12.7%
2001 34.0% 12.8%
Ok. You got me. I have no cite. He’s not on steriods. Or HGH. Or anything else. He’s just a genetic freak of nature who’s body didn’t start to develop until his late 20’s.
Call JAMA!
Puh-leeze
His body didn’t just start to develop. He’s been strong as an ox since his minor-league days.
Sammy had a great year in 2001.
For comparison, here are Babe Ruth’s.
Percentage of hits as homers
Babe Ruth
Percentage of hits as homers
Year Hits Homers percent
1914 2 0 0%
1915 29 4 14%
1916 37 3 8%
1917 40 2 5%
1918 95 11 12%
1919 139 29 21%
1920 172 54 31%
1921 204 59 29%
1922 128 35 27%
1923 205 41 20%
1924 200 46 23%
1925 104 25 24%
1926 184 47 26%
1927 192 60 31%
1928 173 54 31%
1929 172 46 27%
1930 186 49 26%
1931 199 46 23%
1932 156 41 26%
1933 138 34 25%
1934 105 22 21%
1935 13 6 46%%
Source: Baseball Almanac - Babe Ruth
(and MS Excel)
I don’t have major league averages for these years.
I’ll let you in on a secret.
You can increase the size of your muscles with a strict regimen of proper diet and weight training. It’s true!!! There are about 30 different magazines devoted to the pursuit of larger muscleage. Perhaps you’ve seen one?
I have used this method to increase the size of my own arms. If I had the dedication and resources that Sammy has (weight rooms at every park he goes to, training being a part of his job, enough dough to hire a personal nutritionalist and chef), I could bigger in size than he. And WITHOUT taking steroids.
Whodathunkit?
Carbomite - That’s actually quite interesting to look at. Check it out Max, between 1918, 1919 and 1920, Babe Ruth’s homerun percentages skyrocketed from 12% to 21% to 31%. Well, that kind of power couldn’t have been developed from say, discipline and training not involving steroids. Looking at Carbomite’s chart and comparing it with Sammy Sosa doesn’t seem to tell me that anything is amiss here.
As spooje said, there are ways to put on massive amounts of muscle without steroids. My cousin did the Body for Life program for three months and was constantly peddled steroids at the gym. Each time he had to explain that he doesn’t do 'roids, but the bodybuilders wouldn’t believe him. Honestly, if you saw his before and after photos you would not believe that in three months somebody can bulk up on muscle and lose that much fat without use of illegal substances. But he did it, and apparently many others on the program have as well. I checked with a friend who is an MD and a bodybuilder, and he affirms that such great muscular gain can be made through effective diet, supplements (such as creatine) and moderate working out. You only need an hour in the gym or less if you know exactly what you’re doing. Here’s photos if you want to see them
spooje and pulykamell… I’m not going to question your honesty or integrity. Maybe you and/or your friends ARE muscle-bound and steroid-free. Good for you/them. However, in my experience (which does include weightlifting at the local “Hero of the Beach” Gym), I have never met ANYONE that would admit to using steroids. Ever. This lie even followed one guy to the grave. (He died of “pneumonia” at 32, even though it was widely rumored that he used steriods for years. No, I never stuck a needle in his body, so he is also innocent until proven guilty.)
With that said, I have never seen or heard of the “Sammy” workout. I’ve never heard of the “Sammy” diet. I’ve never seen or heard of Sammy’s nutritionalist. Have you?
Someone is buying steriods. And someone is using them. I find it hard to believe it’s the same guy.
And even if Sammy is innocent of using performance enhancing substances, it still doesn’t change the reasons I loathe him. (please see the OP, i.e. the Sammy hop and the Sammy two-finger kiss-and-blow.)
There is a certain “look” to
ignore that last sentence fragment.
If you don’t hear about it, does that mean it doesn’t exist??? So, you think someone just takes the steroids, doesn’t work out, and the muscles just begin to grow?
Steroids + no workouts= no growth.
Workouts + no steroids= growth.
Steroids + workouts= growth and often injuries and health problems.
If you honestly believe that someone cannot attain Sammy Sosa’s size (which isn’t even that big) without steroids, then you are not thinking clearly. You can get twice that size through workouts alone.
There are body-building compettions where they test for steroids. And the body builders who compete in these show have arms that dwarf Sosa’s.
It is possible that Sosa has used steroids. It’s also possible he sold his soul to el Diablo. It’s more likely that he didn’t. But you have no (zero, nada, zilch) evidence that he has even seen steroids, much less used them. You only have evidence that he has big arms and a good swing.
I think the evidence is undeniable. Statistics don’t lie.
Babe Ruth was obviously on steroids.
This post brought to you by <i>The Society for Creative Misinterpretation</i>.
And Maris! That one great season! Obviously, he was juiced.
spooje said:
That’s true. And by your logic, we’d also have to conclude that OJ didn’t do it.
By the way, I HAVE seen the results of steroid use. I’ve also seen guys use steriods without working out. So I do have a frame of reference from which to comment. Based on that, I would say that Sammy lifts weights. But I’m still of the opinion that he’s on 'roids.
I have no first-hand knowledge that he is using steriods. But you have no evidence (zero, nada, zilch) that he isn’t.
So you’re saying that because there’s no conclusive evidence that he doesn’t take steroids, he probably does? 
Of course not. What I’m saying is there is no hard evidence to convict or acquit.
The only evidence that spooje and others can bring to the table is that in their experience Sammy can be on the up and up. That doesn’t make it so. Just because I think the man is 'roiding based on my experience doesn’t make it so. Only a drug test would tell us for sure.
However, if you remember… when this information first hit the news, Sammy said he would welcome drug testing. However, when pressed by a reporter to put his money where his mouth is, he blew up and refused.
I’m also bummed that a perfectly good rant has turned into a debate.
Max, I swear to God you have friggin’ twisted logic. What in God’s good name does OJ have to do with this? There was, oh, just slightly better evidence in the OJ case then your “well, he looks like he’s bulked up and improved his performance, so he must be on steroids.” That like saying “Well, the defendant looks shifty-eyed and sweaty, so he must be guilty.” Ah, what a streamlined justice system we could have…
I know several people who freely admit to using steroids. I know several people who swear (and I believe them) that do not use steroids. Great bulk can be achieved in a short amount of time both ways.
One of my best friends is an MD. I can e-mail him if you like, but I doubt it would help convince you. I have asked him before (since he also does a lot of body-building) whether you can build up mass like my cousin has, in 3-months, just by following a strict diet, exercising as little as an hour a day, and taking dietary supplements. He says absolutely, and even recommended the countless books on offer that guide you.
But it’s much easier to jump to conclusions. Saves you time from thinking.
Well, geez. You brought it up. It’s all over your OP.
So it wasn’t a perfectly good rant, after all. You’ve just said that your saying it doesn’t make it so.