Players busted for PEDs don’t show any notable uptick in performance

85 Comments

A week after ESPN’s Buster Olney decided that Melky Cabrera’s excellent-so-far 2014 season justifies people assuming he’s back on PEDs, ESPN’s Dan Szymborski dives into the numbers and shows that such a decision is not based on any evidence at all:

Despite the rhetoric surrounding PEDs, players caught for steroid/testosterone use do not show a pattern of overperforming their projections in the years leading up to the drug suspension or a pattern of underperforming their projections in the years after a drug suspension.

All of this is based on Szymborski’s ZiPS projection system, which shows that Cabrera is doing about what you’d expect him to do this year. And that, as a group, guys busted for PEDs don’t really deviate too much from their expected performance one way or another before, during or after they are caught for PEDs.

Obviously there are a lot of caveats in play here. Small sample sizes, imperfect data about when guys start and stop taking PEDs and, of course, the flaws any projection system, even one as generally reliable as ZiPS, brings to the table.

But if you’re making a case for something — and Olney and others who are questioning the legitimacy of Melky’s performance this season are clearly making a case for something — it’s incumbent upon you to present some evidence. Szymborski’s analysis doesn’t necessarily prove anything about the efficacy or lack thereof of PEDs. But it has far more evidence on its side than anything people are hurling at Cabrera lately.

Roger Clemens says he’s not running for Congress

Getty Images
11 Comments

Apparently some people in Texas wanted Roger Clemens to run for Congress? At least enough people to where Clemens felt it necessary to tell Pete Olson, the congressman whose seat is going vacant due to his retirement, that, no, he had no interest in running for it.

From ESPN:

“The climate in politics at this time is much more than I would want to undertake, along with my family considerations,” Clemens said in a message to Olson that was obtained by ABC News.

“I am a Republican and I support our President and will continue to do so,” Clemens said. “No matter who our President may be, I will continue my support of them and root for them to be successful, just as I did when President Obama was in office.”

That’s a pretty diplomatic answer from Clemens. But even if he did not have family concerns and even if the “climate” disinterested him, I’m struggling to imagine Clemens as a viable political candidate in the first place.

For as good a pitcher as he was — and for as generally popular as he may be in Texas — the guy has some serious baggage, right? And I mean that beyond just the broad arc of the PEDs controversy that surrounded him for so long. The specifics of that controversy spun off his indictment for perjury before Congress, for example. He was acquitted — and I think it was a proper acquittal — but that was not exactly his finest hour.

It also led to a nasty battle of defamation lawsuits with a drug dealer that, remarkably, caused Clemens to come off way worse than the drug dealer, and that’s quite a trick. That whole process also revealed that he had an extraordinarily problematic extra-marital relationship with a now-dead country music singer. In all, it was a profound, 100% self-inflicted, reputation-trashing, public relations disaster that, even years later, he has taken no responsibility for. It was the sort of episode that, in addition to the ammo it might give any political opponent he may have, calls into serious questions Clemens’ judgment and sense of strategy, both of which are things that, to put it lightly, can be useful in politics.

Clemens, of course, is not going to cite any of those things as a reason for not wanting to run for office, nor does he have to. His simple “no” is all he needs to say and he can go back doing whatever it is he does for the Houston Astros.

But I am struggling mightily to understand why those people who are apparently encouraging him to run for office are doing so despite all of that being out there on the record. Is fame all that matters in politics now? Is a win bought by fame the be-all and end-all, even it means electing a candidate who is profoundly compromised both ethically and morally?

Haha, just kidding. You don’t need to answer that. I think we already know the answer.