5 Responses to Causal Rewrite-gymrat

1. gymrat230 says:

   November 10, 2022 at 8:29 AM

   I have to fix some citations and add some which I will do in my rewrite. I attempted to be more assertive with my claims, and I attempted to structure each sentence in a way that will draw the reader back each time. I’d like feedback on said attempts, but as always any general feedback is of course appreciated as well.

   Reply
2. davidbdale says:

   November 14, 2022 at 2:24 PM

   This is quite good overall, Gymrat. I think the way I can be of most help is to point out small missing claims that prevent (by not being there) readers from following your argument without trouble. In some cases, what’s needed is a small fact you may be taking for granted everybody knows.

   Performance-enhancing drug use by MLB players enhances their performance but doesn’t give their team an advantage of succeeding more than other teams. Statistics such as Batting Average, Homeruns, and Slugging Percentage are phenomenal accreditations to a player’s performance. However, players enhanced output doesn’t exclusively correlate to their team’s success. Subjectively, success is in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, by the ownership in which they will attempt to make their fans happy. However, objective success is about winning, making the playoffs, and ultimately winning the World Series.

   —An “advantage of succeeding” appears to mean “a guaranteed World Championship.
   —Reasonable readers will resist that definition, I think.
   —Ten more wins per season gives teams “and advantage of succeeding,” don’t you think?
   —Granted, no individual players’ performance is likely to be soooo extraordinary that his team automatically wins.
   —But, is that really the argument you intend to make?
   —You might, considering your final sentence.
   —It would be a narrow win, though, to prevail in the argument that any player should be encouraged to juice because he probably won’t take his team to the Series anyway.
   —Aren’t you reaching for something more like: the game will benefit overall if players are supported in whatever decision they make, no matter how many players decide to juice?
   —That’s very different than your present stand, I think.

   It’s easy to see the enhanced performance of baseball players when analyzing The Natural, a comprehensive study done on PEDs and their effects on offensive production in baseball. Runs Created per 27 outs, Homeruns, and Stole Bases saw anywhere from 5-60% jumps due to anabolic steroid use, according to the authors’ Brian Schmotzer and co-authors Patrick D. Kilgo and Jeff Switchenko. At face value, we can see that most, but not all, performance-enhancing drugs will positively boost a player’s performance.

   —This is strong support for the claim that steroids work as advertised.
   —I see no value to diluting the paragraph with the disclaimer that there are exceptions.
   —Instead, if you’re prepared to make the boldest claim, suggest that the sport would prosper if more players improved their abilities similarly. Imagine the team-wide production improvement!

   Human growth hormone is the rare banned performance-enhancing drug that doesn’t give baseball players a noticeable performance boost. The Natural examined the effects of HGH on Runs Created per 27 outs, and there was no evidence to show that human growth hormone was associated with increased performance. There were even some instances where human growth hormone hurt offensive performance.

   —I see zero value to including this claim in the paper at all.
   —You’re not obligated to widen your investigation beyond anabolic steroids.
   —Just be careful not to say anything generically positive about Performance Enhancing Drugs if they include drugs that don’t enhance performance.

   One of the most significant accomplishments for personal success in the MLB is winning a yearly award. Whether it’s the Most Valuable Player, CY Young, or Silver Slugger, winning a prestigious award such as these cements a player into the history books forever. Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, and Jose Canseco have all received unfair ridicule for enhancing their performance. Barry Bonds won seven national league MVP awards, Alex Rodriguez won three MVP awards, and Jose Canseco won one MVP and four Silver Slugger awards. These three players had long, illustrious careers, but their success didn’t guarantee their team’s success.

   —Your argument here is that (presumably) steroids enhanced the performance of three legendary players.
   —You hint without saying so that they might not have won their awards without enhancing.
   —You note that their teams did not “succeed” but without identifying success.
   —If what you mean is that the teams did not win the Series, no one will doubt you (they can look it up!), but they probably won’t conclude that the teams didn’t gain an advantage, have a better shot.

   In 2001, when Barry Bonds set the record for single-season home runs with 73, the San Francisco Giants didn’t even make the playoffs. In fact, during his tenure with the Giants from 1993 to 2007, they didn’t achieve the ultimate success of winning a World Series. Alex Rodriguez played an astounding 22 years in the MLB and only won one world series with the Yankees in 2009. Jose Canseco played 17 seasons, in which he won two world series. Between the 61 seasons combined between these three players, the collective could only bring three world series rings to their teams.

   —All that said, I’ll bet the teams that lost to ARod and Canseco those three years didn’t shrug off the losses by saying, “That’s OK. Look at all the years cheating DIDN’T help their teams.”

   Correlation does not equal causation regarding PED use and a team’s success in baseball, let alone personal success. The Mitchell Report listed 89 people who used PEDs, but their use didn’t guarantee them a successful career. Jack Cust only sported a .242 career batting average and 105 home runs. Todd Pratt is another player whose steroids added little substance to his offensive numbers. A measly 49 home runs in 14 seasons is not a statistic that will have front offices jumping for a player to sign. Howie Clark sported an abysmal three home runs and 26 RBIs in his short six-year season. For those who saw a significant uptick in offensive performance, such as Barry Bonds, they’re the exception, not the rule.

   —You’re not wrong categorically about causation and correlation, but in this case there isn’t even any correlation, right?
   —If the three MVPs had won 61 Series, THEN you’d want to argue that there was no causal link between their steroid use and their teams’ success.
   —Todd Pratt didn’t break any records, but are you saying he would have hit 49 homers without assistance? How can we really say he would have hit any?

   A lot of the focus on steroid use revolves around batters and offensive performance. That is because the Mitchell Report named only two pitchers for using steroids to enhance their performance. Roger Clemens and Eric Gange are the only pitchers who have ever received notoriety for using performance-enhancing drugs. Both pitchers had illustrious careers. Clemens won seven Cy Young awards, given to the best pitcher in each league, during his 24-year career. While Eric Gange played Major League Baseball for ten seasons, won a CY Young award, and set a single-season to save record in 2003 with 55.

   You talk as if knocking another team out of the playoffs is without consequence, Gymrat. Teams that couldn’t get past Clemens for some reason might have done well in the next round. So, there’s more than one way to measure success . . . and an individual’s contribution to the success or failure of others.

   However, these pitchers’ success and phenomenal performance did not guarantee that their team won a world series. Between the two players, they played in the MLB for 34 seasons and only won four World Series. That’s an 11% win rate for their teams while they played in Major League Baseball. When considering the effect a player’s performance has on a team’s success, whether pitcher or batter, we can’t discount the fact that baseball is a team sport.

   I picked Steve Carlton and Dwight Gooden at random. Together they played 40 seasons and won 4 World Series. By your math, a 10% win rate, without steroids. Does that mean that if they had juiced their teams would have won more series? Can you conclude anything either way?

   Simply stating that teams with players who use performance-enhancing drugs will have tremendous success undermines the actuality that baseball is a team sport. When we look at successful players who use PEDs, like Curt Schilling and Alex Rodriguez, we also have to examine the teammates that surround them. Curt Schilling won his titles with great players such as David Ortiz, Jon Lester, and Dustin Pedroia. Alex Rodriguez played with Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera, who have resided in the Baseball Hall of Fame for a few years.

   Especially with pitchers, though, in a 7-game series, two strong pitchers can win two shutouts each and not need a full roster of hitters behind them.

   Steroids need to be better managed, that’s without a doubt, but it’s different from how we think. We all immediately want to demonize players and teams for using and having players using steroids. However, there’s no guarantee that steroid-using players will find an individual or team success during their tenure in the league. For that reason, the policies that limit many players from using PEDs need major revamping. Players shouldn’t have to cower in fear for wanting to be the best version of themselves. They should be given a safe and practical guide to do so if they so choose.

   —I like the conclusion, but for different reasons. I don’t think it’s necessary to downplay the contributions an enhanced team player can make to team success . . . as long as every team player has the option to enhance without repercussions.
   —That way, if several players on a team enhance, even the entire offense, but with permission, then STILL nobody has to apologize for juicing because they’ve merely taken advantage of an advantage available to all.

   The outlook on steroid use is changing within the public, and Major League Baseball needs to follow suit. After many long years of being cast out, Curt Schilling and Barry Bonds are nominated to the Baseball Hall of Fame, serving as the changing tide on the viewpoint of steroid use in baseball. Players who used steroids and had successful careers despite their steroid use should be revered, as they are today. The fact that individual success isn’t guaranteed, and team success isn’t guaranteed is all the more reason to celebrate these players for their historical accomplishments.

   —Bonds, Clemens, and Schilling failed 10 times and will now be considered by the Era Committee, right?

   Any of that helpful?

   Reply
3. davidbdale says:

   November 14, 2022 at 2:25 PM

   Graded provisionally. Always eligible for Revisions and a Regrade.

   Reply
4. gymrat230 says:

   December 7, 2022 at 12:08 PM

   @davidbdale I’d like a regrade for my rewrite of the causal argument.

   Reply
5. davidbdale says:

   December 9, 2022 at 5:39 PM

   You don’t quite say it, but you come close: Safe use of steroids could improve individual player performance without necessarily translating to a team’s ultimate success, but EVEN IF IT DID TIP THE SCALES SUBSTANTIALLY, any player on any team could tip the balance back by electing to follow the same safe protocol.

   (Even more, if batters radically improve their performance, so could pitchers. No team would have to complain about facing superior hitters if they could send superior pitchers to the mound to overmatch them.)

   Reply