Funny, I wrote about him a couple of days before you did.

My point about McGwire is that before that point he wasn’t at all close.

As for the effects of PEDs and cases like Brady Anderson’s, absent way more hard data so that we can compare users with non users (and users when they were not using), it seems to me like too much conjecture. We have no idea how to correct for the usage, we just know it changed things, and I think the best we can do is note that the game was different then.

Also, the burden here isn’t to show that the drugs were 100 percent of their performance, but rather some percent. For McGwire, Clemens and Bonds it seems to me that the certain boost was being able to stay on the field. How much of the other stuff came from the drugs is hard to pin down.

Bonds’ true outlier season was in 2001, the year he broke the record. While 2002-2004 certainly qualify as outliers given his age, they don’t necessarily qualify given his performance. Part of the reason these seasons are such outliers are because of the 578 walks he amassed those years…something that likely had anything to do with PEDs.

Clemens’ case is even more complicated. His only true outlier seasons are 1997 and 2004-2005. In particular, his 1999-2003 seasons are fairly ordinary or perhaps even subpar by his career standards.

It’s easier to look at a superb season by a previously good player and think steroids. Brady Anderson’s 1996 and Andy Pettitte’s 2005 quickly leap to mind, but there are several others. It’s more difficult when looking at a previously great player like Bonds or Clemens to automatically come to the same conclusion. Great players are outliers in the first place, and post-peak seasons that defy the odds are part of the deal with these guys in any era. That doesn’t mean that Bonds or Clemens did not do steroids, but it does make it harder to objectively look at their performances and conclude that steroids absolutely and definitely were 100% behind their performance.

A sneak preview: All the Picks and Pan guys think Strasburg is going to be really good, great maybe, but just about all of them make him a Pan, because expectations are so high. Which is what I wrote in my capsule.

The only person who could live up to Strasburg’s advance press is Barack Obama. Kidding. I meant Michele.

I changed from Ratio to WHIP in the Guide because people complained, and when I asked about the complaints many others responded saying they used WHIP, regardless of the merits.

I still think it makes sense to measure on a per/9 basis, like all other pitching stats, like ERA. Nobody shows HR per IP. Baseball Reference shows K per 9 and BB per 9 and H per 9. Sean also shows WHIP, so I guess it’s nice to have the real estate.

At pattonandco.com we show both.

I’m just used to whip, have used it for 25 years. That’s the main reason I’m unlikely to switch. Hmm, though maybe if I did switch it in the league I run, that would give me a tactical advantage?

The issue always seems to come down to, who should have to convert from the system used in the Guide, those who prefer ratio or those who prefer whip? I wouldn’t make a purchase decision on the issue myself, but I guess there are some folks who would.

mike