Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling
I can argue that easily. Apparently you didn't understand what that graph was showing. That was a graph that did not account for the other changes in the game during that period, therefore it is not an accurate portrayal. The very next chart in the article was made using corrections for league and park effects and lo and behold it shows that power spikes were actually less common than they were from 1949 to 1985!
Remember that everyone agrees home runs were more common during that period, but the data show that factors other than steroids were the true reasons. Home runs were up equally among players believed to have used steroids and those believed not to have used steroids. The rising tide of home runs carried everyone along with it, which is another argument against the steroid power theory. The smaller parks, juiced baseballs, small strike zone, diluted pitching, strength training, better-engineered bats and all the other factors combined to drastically increase home runs across the league. These power-friendly factors turned what used to be 40 homer seasons in to 50 homer seasons. Later, when the pitching-friendly trends (cut fastball, spray charts, batter heat graphs, defensive shifting, defensive sabermetrics, rising pitch velocities etc) were introduced it caused power and scoring to decline even while steroid usage was increasing. The rise and fall of power and scoring has been explained thoroughly without needing to ascribe mythical powers to PEDs.
I'm just flailing my arms here folks, can anyone help me out? Pretty please, I'm serious.
What I'm trying to get across is that there was a higher number of power spikes during the juiced era. No correlations. No adjustments. There were more. But everytime I say that Atomic responds with the fact that no there weren't. Am I crazy? Did we really not land on the moon too?