Originally Posted by edabbs44
So you are of the belief that, ironically, the biggest power hitters of the era just happened to use steroids?
I believe that many of the biggest power hitters of the era were taking steroids, and so were many of the rest of the players in the league. I also believe that the height of the steroid era came after
scoring levels started declining. If steroids were the reason run scoring was elevated then you would see a direct correlation between run scoring and steroid usage levels -- but the facts prove that correlation is very weak. Baseball Prospectus has written extensively on this subject and they concluded that steroids had only a very small impact on scoring rates if any at all.
You don't have to take steroids to get big and strong. The average player today is taller and weighs more than the average player in the year 2000 when scoring reached it's peak. If size and strength were the major reason for elevated scoring and home run rates then why are those rates lower now even though the players are bigger and stronger?
Most of the players busted for PEDs through the years were not powerful sluggers by any means. Many of the best home run hitters during the Steroids Era were not believed to have taken steroids -- Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, Adam Dunn and many more.
I believe steroids were a scourge on baseball and harmed the game a lot and the cheaters should have been punished, but I don't believe steroids had nearly as much impact on the game of baseball as many people do. If we blame steroids for all the higher scoring rates then we will fail to see and appreciate all the sweeping changes that came into baseball over the same period and were the true reasons why the game is so much different today than it was in the last century.