Originally Posted by kaldaniels
If you are going to be condescending at least be correct.
From the article.
"Power Spikes have occurred more frequently in the Juiced Era, but the increase in frequency is almost entirely attributable to certain types of hitters."
From your post.
"Saber-god Nate Silver proved that home run spikes by individual players were neither more common nor more drastic in the 90s than in previous decades"
Now, you can fudge numbers and somehow say that a player who actually hit 30 homeruns in 1986 should be credited with 36 home runs to come up with your conclusion, but to not mention that is misleading.
But if you are looking at the raw data there were more power spikes per 100 batters in the juiced era than any other. That is an accurate statement, which is the opposite of what your initial post stated.
You want to take one sentence out of a long article and use it out of context to try to distort the article and maintain it says the opposite of what it really says. The fact of the matter is the article concludes that steroids were NOT
the reason why home runs were more prevalent in general, steroids were NOT
the reason why there was a spike in 50+ run home seasons, and steroids were NOT
the reason why scoring rose and fell in the years before and after 2000. There were other reasons that had much greater effect on scoring and power -- smaller parks, juiced baseballs, small strike zone, diluted pitching due to expansion etc etc.
To counter your cherrypicking of a quote from the article, I will cherrypick a few as well:
"In fact, if we rerun the numbers to account for macroscopic changes to the offensive environment, then the increase in Power Spikes disappears."
"By this definition, Power Spikes have been neither any more nor any less frequent in the Juiced Era than in previous periods."
"Sometimes a very good power hitter will turn into an insanely great one, as Bonds and McGwire did. But this is no more common today than it had been previously."
"Lots of players have had unusual career paths, back from the days when ballplayers' drugs of choice were Schaefer Beer and Vitalis Hair Tonic. Starting in 1953, a twenty-eight-year-old Ted Kluszewski, who had averaged just 15 home runs a season to that point in his big-league career, reeled off consecutive seasons of 40, 49, and 47. In 1973, Davey Johnson, who had just turned thirty, hit 43 home runs; he had never hit more than 18 before (and would never hit more than 15 thereafter). Even Hank Aaron defied expectations. In 1971, a season in which he missed more than twenty games, he set a career high in home runs with 47. Aaron was thirty-seven years old at the time.
It is natural to tie together cause and effect. These days, it has become just as natural to attribute any unexpected change in performance to ulterior motives. Eric Gagne adds 5 mph to his fastball? He's juicing. Albert Pujols, who was considered a second-tier prospect, bursts onto the scene with a performance worthy of Joe DiMaggio? He's juicing--unless he faked his birth certificate. Sammy Sosa? Not only was he juicing, he was also corking his bat, using a laser-eye mechanism in his batting helmet, and bribing the opposing pitcher to throw him hanging sliders."