Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
Wrong. You apparently only read parts of the article and ignored the parts that you didn't like. Power spikes decreased at no higher a rate than one would expect given the increased home run environment caused by the non-steroid factors listed above.
I don't think you understand what he did. He ballpark corrected numbers across eras in order to normalize the data. Yet you simply cannot correct old eras for 2004 AL (which he did). Ballpark correction is already a flawed calculation since players are not all the same. If you have the 1927 Yankees playing in Petco and the 2012 Astros playing in GABP, the ballpark corrections you get will not be a true representation of the ballpark. On top of that, if the 27 Yankees played today there is no real representation of what they would actually do. Heck, ballpark correction stats don't even use interleague play since it would skew the data, but he not only doesn't care about league issues he does it across eras. It's voodoo math. What we do know is the base numbers completely go against his conclusion, and it takes his corrections to make his point. It's just plain poor. He could try to make the points about eras, but that graph he made should not be used as some sort of fact. His whole basis for the argument is not only mathematically flawed, his reasons for other eras are just plain ignorant.
On top of all of that he ignores the most glaring thing, home runs were way up. Occam's razor. I don't think he subscribes to it, just wants to create a contrarian viewpoint, and ignores the most glaring data for stuff he made up that doesn't prove anything.
edit: there is one thing you can take from his data, and that is when a player has a career year it doesn't automatically mean that player started using PED's. Yet it in no way proves PED's had no affect on baseball home runs and offense.