Ryan Braun going down?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

You can't believe this.

From 1995-2002, 18 players hit 50 or more HRs. 2003-present? 6. Did the bodybuilding and fitness revolution take a hiatus around the same time as steroid testing began?

You seem unaware of the other things that were going on in baseball at that time. You are ignoring the facts of expansion teams, Coor's Field pre-humidor, bouncier baseballs, smaller strikezones and denser bats during those 1995-2002 years. Steroids were a very small piece of the puzzle.

The average player is bigger now than at the height of the steroid era, yet scoring and homers are down, so it is quite clear that bigger stronger players are/were not the reason for power spikes. Scoring and home runs were on the decline long BEFORE steroid testing began in 2005. Steroids were most rampant from 2001-2004, yet scoring peaked in 2000 and was rapidly declining when steroids were being used more than ever. It is very tough to square those facts up with a belief that steroids were responsible for increased power. The facts show no correlation between rates of steroid use and increased home runs or scoring. The strongest steroids were in use in the 80's and early 90's long before scoring and home runs climbed to record levels. As has been said, there are better reasons for the power binge than steroids. Once you look a little deeper it becomes obvious.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The average player is bigger now than at the height of the steroid era. Scoring and home runs were on the decline long BEFORE steroid testing began in 2005. Steroids were most rampant from 2001-2004, yet scoring peaked in 2000 and was rapidly declining when steroids were being used more than ever. The strongest steroids were in use in the 80's and early 90's long before scoring and home runs climbed. As has been said, there are better reasons for the power binge than steroids. Once you look a little deeper it becomes obvious.

Please provide the stats of which players were using steroids (including percentage of the league) and how in was at it's height in somehow the 80's, 90's, and 2001-2004 all at the same time. As for body size, players are taller now than in the past (mainly due to the focus on taller pitchers over the last decade). That accounts for the larger weight. Yet in the 90's into 2005 players height was very similar to the late 70's and early 80's, but weight increased dramatically by 1995. There is also no account for muscle mass/body fat.

BTW...2000 was the height, but 2001-2004 averaged more home runs per game than 96-99. In fact, you have to take into account Coors installed the humidor in 2002 which directly led to a major drop off in home runs at Coors. So you can inflate 2001-2004 even more. The anomaly was 2000, and it was a 1 year number. Every year was less than 2000. Yet 2001-2004 was higher than 96-99. There was not some major drop off. If you look at the last 4 years, you have to go back to the early 90's to find a 4 year stretch similar. That is a drop off.

You cannot simply take 2000 and say "hey, there was a drop off so it's not steroids." You have to take more than one year and look at standard deviations and averages. Once you do that, 2001-2004 fits right in with the late 90's and 2000. On the other hand, 2009-2012 does not. You also can't just put a stake in the ground and say "this point is where it should stop." It's not like when someone stops using PED's they suddenly deflate, and also in the mean time testing evolves.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by scott91575

Please provide the stats of which players were using steroids (including percentage of the league) and how in was at it's height in somehow the 80's, 90's, and 2001-2004 all at the same time. As for body size, players are taller now than in the past (mainly due to the focus on taller pitchers over the last decade). That accounts for the larger weight. Yet in the 90's into 2005 players height was very similar to the late 70's and early 80's, but weight increased dramatically by 1995. There is also no account for muscle mass/body fat.

BTW...2000 was the height, but 2001-2004 averaged more home runs per game than 96-99. In fact, you have to take into account Coors installed the humidor in 2002 which directly led to a major drop off in home runs at Coors. So you can inflate 2001-2004 even more. The anomaly was 2000, and it was a 1 year number. Every year was less than 2000. Yet 2001-2004 was higher than 96-99. There was not some major drop off. If you look at the last 4 years, you have to go back to the early 90's to find a 4 year stretch similar. That is a drop off.

You cannot simply take 2000 and say "hey, there was a drop off so it's not steroids." You have to take more than one year and look at standard deviations and averages. Once you do that, 2001-2004 fits right in with the late 90's and 2000. On the other hand, 2009-2012 does not. You also can't just put a stake in the ground and say "this point is where it should stop." It's not like when someone stops using PED's they suddenly deflate, and also in the mean time testing evolves.

You have numerous misunderstandings in your post.

I didn't say steroid usage was at it's height in the 80s and 90s. I said the strength and effectiveness of the steroids was highest in the 80's and 90's. Back then players were taking the hardest drugs. Once it was realized that those drugs were so harmful players began taking less dangerous (and less effective) drugs that were also harder to test for. That trend has been continuing ever since then to the point where the PEDs being used now are so weak that they do nothing.

Steroids were at their highest rate of use just before the league began suspending players for positive tests in 2005. If steroids were the reason scoring was elevated then scoring should have continued to rise dramatically well beyond the year 2000 -- but it didn't, it actually declined.

If you really want to learn more about the PEDs issue you can read lots of reports on Baseball Prospectus. You can start with Baseball Between the Numbers and Extra Innings: More Baseball Between the Numbers, which are books published by Baseball Prospectus. Or you can read the studies by sports scientists like physicist Robert Adair who wrote The Physics of Baseball and other works to find out many reasons why scoring has increased. Scientists like Adair and DeVany have concluded that steroids do not contribute to more home runs. 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 (What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?). Sabermetrics folks have also come to the conclusion that the statistics prove that steroids had very little if any impact on home run hitting. It is a very interesting subject and there is an absolute ton of information out there. The changes in the baseballs themselves and how they have become much livelier over the years is a well-documented subject. Bats have also become denser and more able to hit the ball harder. Go to http://steroids-and-baseball.com/ for more information than you can handle about why steroids and other PEDs have had a negligible effect on the game of baseball.

It is nice to see that you acknowledge that players are bigger and stronger now than they were during the steroids era, yet power has fallen considerably. Hard to square that with the argument that power spiked because players were bigger due to steroids.

You also acknowledge that scoring peaked in 2000 and was dropping during the years when steroid usage was most widespread. It is also true that there was no sudden drop in scoring after PED testing and punishment was instituted. Nope, the decline in scoring continued at the same rate it had been since 2001. If steroids had been the cause for increased scoring and power then there should have been a dramatic drop when players began being suspended for cheating -- but there wasn't.

Reasons why scoring increased during the 90's:

1. Expansion by adding four new teams led to weaker pitching.
2. New ballparks were smaller than the old ones.
3. Coor's Field introduced high-altitude to MLB.
4. The balls were much more springy and lively so they bounced farther off the bat. The biggest change began in mid-1993.
5. The bats became denser and harder and were shaped so there is more weight in the sweet spot and less weight wasted in the handle.
6. Players became bigger and stronger and faster and more athletic due to strength training and fitness training.
7. The population in general has gotten taller and larger over the generations.
8. Teams learned that On-Base % and Slugging Percentage were better than Batting Average and speed.
9. AstroTurf was replaced by real grass, which slowed down the game and made power more valuable than speed.
10. Smaller strike zone (unless you were a Brave)

Reasons why scoring has been steadily declining since 2000:

1. Tommy John surgery and other sports surgeries have become commonplace even for minor leaguers and amateur pitchers. This has kept the best pitchers on the mound instead of ending their careers and causing them to be replaced by minor leaguers who otherwise would not be in the major leagues. This has made a HUGE difference. A large percentage of the best pitchers in baseball have suffered arm injuries that would have ended their careers last century, but they got repaired and are back on the mound as good as new.
2. Larger populations and expanded scouting in foreign countries led to a larger pool of pitching talent.
3. Coor's Field began use of the humidor to reduce scoring.
4. A dramatic increase in the usage of the cut fastball or cutter, which has proven to be an extremely effective pitch.
5. Pitch speeds have been steadily and dramatically rising throughout this period.
6. Video technology has led to creation of hitter spray charts and dramatically increased usage of defensive shifting to take hits away from batters.
7. Video technology has led to heat graphs for hitters to identify and expose their weaknesses. (Video tech has favored pitchers much more than hitters).
8. Teams have increased emphasis on defensive skill after the new sabermetric defensive stats proved how many extra runs were allowed by poor defenders.
9. Increased usage of situational relievers and greater awareness of platoon splits.
10. Better development of pitching prospects based on data that led to greater awareness of why young pitchers were getting hurt (mainly overwork).
11. Increased usage of pitch counts to prevent pitchers from getting injured.
12. Some of the newer ballparks were larger, reversing the trend of building smaller and smaller fields.
13. Improved calling of balls and strikes by umpires after the Questec and PITCHf/x systems were installed have led to larger and more consistent strikezones.

So you can see there is a myriad of reasons why scoring and power increased for awhile, then decreased for awhile. There is no need to believe that steroids were the driving force. The rise and fall of steroids does not line up with the ebb and flow of scoring or power, there is not a good correlation.

I believe it is important to eradicate PEDs from baseball and punish the cheaters. I think this is important because it will help the game's image and help us all move past this subject once and for all. PEDs are bad for the players' health and it sets a terrible example for young people.

I think it is hilarious that the cheaters risked their health and ruined their reputations and their cheating didn't really end up helping them on the baseball field. They struck a deal with the Devil to gain an advantage and as usual the Devil double-crossed them. They sold their souls to the Devil and got nothing in return. Serves them right.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

You have numerous misunderstandings in your post.

I didn't say steroid usage was at it's height in the 80s and 90s. I said the strength and effectiveness of the steroids was highest in the 80's and 90's. Back then players were taking the hardest drugs. Once it was realized that those drugs were so harmful players began taking less dangerous (and less effective) drugs that were also harder to test for. That trend has been continuing ever since then to the point where the PEDs being used now are so weak that they do nothing.

Steroids were at their highest rate of use just before the league began suspending players for positive tests in 2005. If steroids were the reason scoring was elevated then scoring should have continued to rise dramatically well beyond the year 2000 -- but it didn't, it actually declined.

If you really want to learn more about the PEDs issue you can read lots of reports on Baseball Prospectus. You can start with Baseball Between the Numbers and Extra Innings: More Baseball Between the Numbers, which are books published by Baseball Prospectus. Or you can read the studies by sports scientists like physicist Robert Adair who wrote The Physics of Baseball and other works to find out many reasons why scoring has increased. Scientists like Adair and DeVany have concluded that steroids do not contribute to more home runs. 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 (What Do Statistics Tell Us About Steroids?). Sabermetrics folks have also come to the conclusion that the statistics prove that steroids had very little if any impact on home run hitting. It is a very interesting subject and there is an absolute ton of information out there. The changes in the baseballs themselves and how they have become much livelier over the years is a well-documented subject. Bats have also become denser and more able to hit the ball harder. Go to http://steroids-and-baseball.com/ for more information than you can handle about why steroids and other PEDs have had a negligible effect on the game of baseball.

It is nice to see that you acknowledge that players are bigger and stronger now than they were during the steroids era, yet power has fallen considerably. Hard to square that with the argument that power spiked because players were bigger due to steroids.

You also acknowledge that scoring peaked in 2000 and was dropping during the years when steroid usage was most widespread. It is also true that there was no sudden drop in scoring after PED testing and punishment was instituted. Nope, the decline in scoring continued at the same rate it had been since 2001. If steroids had been the cause for increased scoring and power then there should have been a dramatic drop when players began being suspended for cheating -- but there wasn't.

Reasons why scoring increased during the 90's:

1. Expansion by adding four new teams led to weaker pitching.
2. New ballparks were smaller than the old ones.
3. Coor's Field introduced high-altitude to MLB.
4. The balls were much more springy and lively so they bounced farther off the bat. The biggest change began in mid-1993.
5. The bats became denser and harder and were shaped so there is more weight in the sweet spot and less weight wasted in the handle.
6. Players became bigger and stronger and faster and more athletic due to strength training and fitness training.
7. The population in general has gotten taller and larger over the generations.
8. Teams learned that On-Base % and Slugging Percentage were better than Batting Average and speed.
9. AstroTurf was replaced by real grass, which slowed down the game and made power more valuable than speed.
10. Smaller strike zone (unless you were a Brave)

Reasons why scoring has been steadily declining since 2000:

1. Tommy John surgery and other sports surgeries have become commonplace even for minor leaguers and amateur pitchers. This has kept the best pitchers on the mound instead of ending their careers and causing them to be replaced by minor leaguers who otherwise would not be in the major leagues. This has made a HUGE difference. A large percentage of the best pitchers in baseball have suffered arm injuries that would have ended their careers last century, but they got repaired and are back on the mound as good as new.
2. Larger populations and expanded scouting in foreign countries led to a larger pool of pitching talent.
3. Coor's Field began use of the humidor to reduce scoring.
4. A dramatic increase in the usage of the cut fastball or cutter, which has proven to be an extremely effective pitch.
5. Pitch speeds have been steadily and dramatically rising throughout this period.
6. Video technology has led to creation of hitter spray charts and dramatically increased usage of defensive shifting to take hits away from batters.
7. Video technology has led to heat graphs for hitters to identify and expose their weaknesses. (Video tech has favored pitchers much more than hitters).
8. Teams have increased emphasis on defensive skill after the new sabermetric defensive stats proved how many extra runs were allowed by poor defenders.
9. Increased usage of situational relievers and greater awareness of platoon splits.
10. Better development of pitching prospects based on data that led to greater awareness of why young pitchers were getting hurt (mainly overwork).
11. Increased usage of pitch counts to prevent pitchers from getting injured.
12. Some of the newer ballparks were larger, reversing the trend of building smaller and smaller fields.
13. Improved calling of balls and strikes by umpires after the Questec and PITCHf/x systems were installed have led to larger and more consistent strikezones.

So you can see there is a myriad of reasons why scoring and power increased for awhile, then decreased for awhile. There is no need to believe that steroids were the driving force. The rise and fall of steroids does not line up with the ebb and flow of scoring or power, there is not a good correlation.

I believe it is important to eradicate PEDs from baseball and punish the cheaters. I think this is important because it will help the game's image and help us all move past this subject once and for all. PEDs are bad for the players' health and it sets a terrible example for young people.

I think it is hilarious that the cheaters risked their health and ruined their reputations and their cheating didn't really end up helping them on the baseball field. They struck a deal with the Devil to gain an advantage and as usual the Devil double-crossed them. They sold their souls to the Devil and got nothing in return. Serves them right.

Numbers not directly in response to your numbers...

1) Just because in baseball history there have been spikes does not mean the recent spike was not caused by PED's.
2) How does ballpark size make any sense out of the recent dip in power? In fact, you can state that over and over again. Same thing with the idea of watered down pitching.
3) Any of that talk about how steroids do not help hit home runs is nothing but slight of hand. Steroids and overall fitness helps recovery. Anyone can tell you the grind of a 162 game schedule. Even if you want to fight the absolute stupidity that these guys were not able to hit better on PED's, there is no doubt PED's help recovery time and allow athletes to perform at their peak all year long.
4) Juiced ball theory has never been proven. Please don't act like it's a fact.
5) Your theory about steroids is in no way proven, and if anything steroids have become better not worse. Use of PED's continues to get refined for performance. Stating the 80's and 90's were somehow better but more dangerous is naive.
6) The guy that said the recent home run surge is no different than any point in history is a moron. I don't care who how smart you think he is, he is an idiot. You know why it spiked around 1970 (which he points to as the big spike)? They freaking lowered the mound in 1969. What kind of idiot does not correlate that to his numbers as a reason? Instead he talks about greenies. No self respecting baseball fan would ignore the lowering of the mound as the main reason for increase in offense. On top of all of that, he uses park factors for adjustment. You know how they get park factors? From stats. Introducing park factors across eras is incredibly stupid and I have no idea how any statistician could say he could accurately represent how Babe Ruth would have hit in Petco Park by using park factors. It's an inherently terrible analysis when you consider the recent proliferation of ballparks in the steroid era. Those parks have only existed in a steroid era, and therefore will naturally reduce offensive numbers for players that played in them vs. the players that played in the early 70's where they played in ballparks that existed during a really low offensive era (which changed due to the height of the mound). On top of all of that stupidity, he is basing all his information on power spikes for players already in the major leagues. It's not like these guys are showing up in MLB, hit without PED's for a while, and then decide to take PED's. Most of them start out taking PED's before they even hit the majors. So a guy who shows up hitting home runs won't show up as a spike in his data even though that guy is hitting more home runs at the start of his career vs. someone of another era. The plain and simple fact is home runs and runs in general were way up. More than ever in the history of the game, and it was not all ballparks. There have always been small ballparks, and let's just say Petco, ATT, Safeco, PNC, Comerica (especially the early years when it was HUGE), Citizens, Busch, and many others are in no way smaller than their predecessors and in many of those cases much larger.
7) Once again, bat tech is still the same now vs. the 2000s. In fact it should be better, but somehow runs and home runs are going down.
8) The dilution theory is garbage. First of all, pitching specialization continued to increase. Second, it's not like the numbers of hitters doesn't also increase. Third, population increases including the incorporation of more foreign players more than makes up for any supposed dilution. Fourth, baseball has continued to add teams throughout it's history, why is that ignored for past eras. Finally, dilution creates further separation between the good and bad, but norm stays the same for the most part. So you can use dilution as a theory for individual records, but for overall league stats it's a poor argument.
9) Human height has not changed as much as you want to believe, and in fact as I mentioned the height of the average major leaguer did not change much from about 1979 to 2007, yet weight did. Of course weight doesn't matter per you since added strength doesn't improve hitting. So not sure why you bring that up.
10) Once again, grass, strike zone, slugging/on base percentage are all things known or proliferated in the last 4 years, but stats have declined. So many of your arguments would mean there would be no dip in the last 4 years, but there has been. So they must be thrown out.

Finally, there has not been a steady decline since 2000. Please stop with that outright lie. As I stated, 2000-2004 had more home runs per game than 96-99. There has not been any real decline until the last 4 years or so. Humidor started in 2002. As stated, this occurred in the 2001 to 2004 years I talked about. Proliferation of surgery techniques is also true for hitters, same with foreign hitters. You can't look at pitchers in a vacuum. Video tech also works for hitters, and defensive alignment doesn't stop home runs (which are down). Larger ballparks were introduced before the 2007 without any appreciable difference (ATT, Petco, Safeco, and Comerica, which is now much smaller, are examples). As for improved calling of balls and strikes, how does that lower home runs? Is there some sort of evidence that being more accurate somehow causes hitters to hit worse? Maybe there is and I am missing something, but were umpires favoring hitters before Pitchfx and that is now corrected.

Anyway, we pretty much disagree. I suppose I will side with the sheer number of baseball players willing to risk their health over something that works vs. something that doesn't. In fact, I can't believe anyone thinks performance enhancing drugs doesn't help athletes hit better.

I won't say some of those things you mentioned had no effect on the game, but performance enhancing drugs certainly did.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

You seem unaware of the other things that were going on in baseball at that time. You are ignoring the facts of expansion teams, Coor's Field pre-humidor, bouncier baseballs, smaller strikezones and denser bats during those 1995-2002 years. Steroids were a very small piece of the puzzle.

But didn't you say this?

It was the bodybuilding and fitness revolution that caused players to get stronger, not steroids.

And did the strike zones get bigger, the baseballs get less bouncy and bats decrease in density starting around the same time as testing? How would you account for the fact that we are seeing nowhere near the individual power numbers since testing began? Did Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, etc have the secret workout that no one else knows? And, ironically, the trainers who know the secrets are also the ones who deal in PEDs? McNamee and Greg Anderson being two of those miracle workers? The fact that we aren't seeing the numbers yet we still have the workouts and fitness revolution is telling.

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

The average player is bigger now than at the height of the steroid era, yet scoring and homers are down, so it is quite clear that bigger stronger players are/were not the reason for power spikes.

As we'll see later, you say that steroids were most rampant in 2001-2004. Team HRs averaged 182 in 2004, 164 in 2012. How do you reconcile that?

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Scoring and home runs were on the decline long BEFORE steroid testing began in 2005. Steroids were most rampant from 2001-2004, yet scoring peaked in 2000 and was rapidly declining when steroids were being used more than ever.

Generalizing the effect of PEDs on the performance of the entire league is a difficult thing to do. You don't shoot steroids and then become superhuman. There is obviously a lot more to it. No one here can say for sure, but my guess is that some players paid more money, had access to better drug chemists, worked harder, etc to see bigger benefits.

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

It is very tough to square those facts up with a belief that steroids were responsible for increased power. The facts show no correlation between rates of steroid use and increased home runs or scoring. The strongest steroids were in use in the 80's and early 90's long before scoring and home runs climbed to record levels. As has been said, there are better reasons for the power binge than steroids. Once you look a little deeper it becomes obvious.

Again, it isn't just the steroids, it is the entire package. Some say that steroids were around since the 40s and 50s. That might be the case, but people didn't learn how to get their maximum effect until decades later. This happens a lot. I don't care, for the most part, that some guy in 1880 drank bull semen to get a testosterone boost. It likely didn't do much for him. The medical community has progressed by leaps and bounds over the years and, in the steroid era, they finally found the best way to utilize them.

[oneupper]

Considerable time and effort is dedicated to attempt to disprove the obvious/logical and intuitive. A few times, it has grounds and manages to shift the course of what we believe/know...but most of the time it just fuels another conspiracy theory.

There are treaties written on:

1. Why the holocaust didn't exist (or wasn't as large as claimed)
2. Why the earth is only 6,000 years old.
3. Why the moon landing didn't happen.
and we can go on. These are all backed up by carefully filtered "evidence" and hundreds of pages long.
(Those are the more radical examples...there's a lot of grayer areas, like global warming, and pre-historic alien visits, etc.)

Now we have Performance Enhancing Drugs don't enhance Performance. Yet we have a history of athletes taking them and enhancing their performance. From weight-lifting to cycling. Swimming and boxing. Track and Field. And Baseball.
No, wait..baseball is different. It's unique. There are dozens of other factors in play. Yes there are. That complexity allows for sorts of theories to flourish and find some grounds. Even one in which PEDs don't enhance performance.

Thanks for the treaty. I'm sure its interesting. I'll wait for the movie or maybe the PED-phile Hall of Fame and Museum.
I'm very content with my mainstream ignorance.

[kaldaniels]

Without quoting that long post, I have one thing to add.

I was intrigued to see what Nate Silver had to say, so I went to the link. Silver says that power spikes by individual players DID increase during the juiced era. Which is exactly the opposite of what the poster said the article claimed.

[scott91575]

Holy cow, I just went through most of the the site you linked (steroids and baseball one). I don't even have the time to go through all the garbage on that site. First of all, the whole juiced ball angle he harps on is completely made up. There is zero evidence the manufacturing process changed or the ball was indeed different in 1993. He bases it on the ball supposedly looking different. You can find pretty much any year in baseball and find someone claiming it looks a little different. That is just bull.

Next, his physics are questionable at best (I have a masters in mechanical engineering BTW). He uses some massive assumptions which equates everything to body mass. I can't even get into how laughable that assumption is, especially when dealing with someone using steroids.

Do yourself a favor, and forget everything you read on that site. It's a joke.

[jojo]

Eric Walker is more entrenched on this subject than most.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by jojo

Eric Walker is more entrenched on this subject than most.

I don't care how entrenched he is on it, his calculations are laughable. I actually tried to come up with my own before reading it. I then wondered where he came up with his conclusions. Going through his stuff I found the huge assumption about body mass. It is such a massive assumption it's laughable, and his claims are all based around it. On top of that, he does not understand physics in the least or understand where they came from. He accepts them as gospel, and they simply are not. You simply cannot take body mass and translate that into some general equation for kinetic energy. There are some solid calculations in there, but to get to his conclusions takes highly questionable assumptions. I believe he also says Barry Bonds was only 20 pounds. Bull. It was more like 40 or more.

It's just horribly flawed from a physics standpoint, plain and simple.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

If you think PEDs are the reason then you have missed some dramatic changes to the game of baseball over the last 30 years. Blaming these changes on PEDs is a totally myopic view of baseball and sports in general. If you think PEDs are the reason that players are bigger today then you just haven't been paying attention. Take a look at some photos of the weight room at Riverfront Stadium in the 1970's and compare that to the fitness center at Great American Ballpark today and then you might begin to understand why the game has changed. Watch the players work out at spring training this year and take note of all the things they do that players in prior eras did not do.

Factor in smaller ballparks, bouncier baseballs, smaller strikezones, denser baseball bats, Coor's Field, improved nutrition, year-round fitness regimens, sabermetrics (teams realized power is better than speed for example), larger multi-national player pool, better surgeries and rehab to keep star players on the field, and 21st-century technology. Now can you see why blaming PEDs for the changes is actually so ridiculous. I can see why casual fans would think that way, but ORG members should know better.

Pretty much every sabermetric study of the PEDs issue has shown that PEDs had a minimal impact on power and run scoring even during the height of the steroid era. Power spikes were no bigger nor more common than they were prior to the steroid era. Rates of steroid usage do not correlate well with increased scoring in major league baseball. Steroids did not rewrite the record books.

Barry Bonds took steroids. He also worked out in the gym for 4 hours every day. Everyone agrees he was dedicated to weight training. Same with McGwire. If you lift weights that much you are going to get huge. Sure, maybe the steroids were a shortcut to strength but it is lunacy to claim that those guys only hit home runs because they took roids. It flies in the face of reason. Hundreds and hundreds of players took steroids but only a select few hit tons of home runs. It was the bodybuilding and fitness revolution that caused players to get stronger, not steroids.

Baseball needs to get rid of PEDs. We all agree about that. But it is time to get the record straight on PEDs and quit obsessing over the issue. PEDs didn't ruin the game. The game is better than ever. The players are better than ever.

Players took steroids in order to cheat and gain an advantage, but it turns out the joke is on them because they endangered their health and ruined their reputations yet gained no appreciable advantage on the playing field. Karma is a female dog.

How do you explain the drop in HRs since PED testing was instituted?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

And did the strike zones get bigger, the baseballs get less bouncy and bats decrease in density starting around the same time as testing? How would you account for the fact that we are seeing nowhere near the individual power numbers since testing began? Did Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, etc have the secret workout that no one else knows? And, ironically, the trainers who know the secrets are also the ones who deal in PEDs? McNamee and Greg Anderson being two of those miracle workers? The fact that we aren't seeing the numbers yet we still have the workouts and fitness revolution is telling.



As we'll see later, you say that steroids were most rampant in 2001-2004. Team HRs averaged 182 in 2004, 164 in 2012. How do you reconcile that?

The stats prove that scoring and home runs were declining while steroid usage was increasing. Again, that is the exact opposite of what your steroid theory would predict. Steroids causing scoring simply does not compute. I gave you a nice big list of reasons why home runs and scoring began decline after the 2000 season. Did you even read that list before you replied with questions that I already answered?

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

How do you explain the drop in HRs since PED testing was instituted?

Again, that question was already answered in the large post you responded to.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

Without quoting that long post, I have one thing to add.

I was intrigued to see what Nate Silver had to say, so I went to the link. Silver says that power spikes by individual players DID increase during the juiced era. Which is exactly the opposite of what the poster said the article claimed.

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.

[kaldaniels]

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.

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.