Ryan Braun going down?

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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?

Yes, I touched on all of them. Did you read my statement about average and standard deviation? I guess not, because you keep harping on declining. 2000 was the height, but when you compare home runs from 96-99 to 2001-2004, 2001-2004 was larger. There will be deviation in years, and honestly, I don't think you comprehend statistics. You cannot just take 1 year and go "HEY, OTHER YEARS AFTER ARE LESS, THAT DISPROVES IT!!!" When you look at a long timeframe you can see that home runs continued to increase with 2000 being a deviation. Home runs are the most direct correlation to an increase in strength, and as I have stated over, and over, and over again: The average home runs in 2001 to 2004 was more than 96 through 99. There is also no evidence PED use continued to dramatically increase. We don't know how prevalent it was in the late 90's vs. early 2000's, especially considering PED testing began in the minors in 2001. 2001 to 2004 is really no different than 95-2000 from a statistical standpoint, and there is no information that 2001-2004 had a major increase PED users vs. the mid to late 90's. Yet when you look at 2009-2012, there is a distinct statistical decline that is not an anomaly or deviation. There is your decline, and I showed why your reasons do not jive with that decline. I also refuted your articles you take as gospel. Just terrible use of statistics and plain bad math. Both wreak of someone who came to a conclusion and worked backwards cherry picking info that supported their conclusion while making horrible assumptions.

I will state this again since I don't think you read my posts...

The statistics in Nate Silver's article are faulty due to ballpark correction over eras (cannot be done), his inability to point out rules changes that directly affected other eras, and the simple fact it does not take into account any players that were using PED's when they entered the league. Eric Walker's website uses a major lie to support his reason for an increase in 1993 (no proof at all the ball was juiced), and his physics calculations reasoning steroids do not help hit home runs are insanely flawed by the assumption body mass can be used when calculating kinetic energy.

[kaldaniels]

Nate Silver even says perhaps using park factors etc. is not the best way to view the issue. He did not say it proves anything. Those words were put in Nate's mouth. I enjoyed his article though as he basically walked you though his thought process.

[757690]

One thing to consider when coming to conclusions about PED use and it's effect on run production in MLB. We are all assuming that PED use has dramatically declined since testing. I am sure it has declined some, but we really don't know how prevalent it was in the Steroid Era nor how much it has changed since testing began. Because of this ignorance, all analysis of the effect of PED based on MLB overall numbers is meaningless, and silly.

I do think that it is absurd to think that PED use didn't dramatically increase the offensive production of player that we know took steroids. When looking at the players like Canseco, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Brady Anderson, etc, the effects of PED use on their production is unmistakable. I really can't understand how one can look at these players and deny that PED use made significantly better players.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by 757690

One thing to consider when coming to conclusions about PED use and it's effect on run production in MLB. We are all assuming that PED use has dramatically declined since testing. I am sure it has declined some, but we really don't know how prevalent it was in the Steroid Era nor how much it has changed since testing began. Because of this ignorance, all analysis of the effect of PED based on MLB overall numbers is meaningless, and silly.

I do think that it is absurd to think that PED use didn't dramatically increase the offensive production of player that we know took steroids. When looking at the players like Canseco, McGwire, Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, Brady Anderson, etc, the effects of PED use on their production is unmistakable. I really can't understand how one can look at these players and deny that PED use made significantly better players.

I also see a lot of assumptions that it only began in 1995 too.

Which I think is hogwash myself.

[scott91575]

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.

[757690]

Originally Posted by westofyou

I also see a lot of assumptions that it only began in 1995 too.

Which I think is hogwash myself.

That's an excellent point. Olympic athletes were using steroids for decades before that. The key is that we really just don't know when it started, nor how much it has declined since testing.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

I also see a lot of assumptions that it only began in 1995 too.

Which I think is hogwash myself.

It has likely been going on for years, at some level, however it is pretty clear that it did not have the same effect 30 years ago that it does today.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

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?

Firstly, I'm not sure how you know which exact years steroid usage was increasing. How did you come up with 2000-2004?

Average HR per team:

1995 146
1996 177
1997 166
1998 169
1999 184
2000 190
2001 182
2002 169
2003 174
2004 182
2005 167
2006 180
2007 165
2008 163
2009 168
2010 154
2011 152
2012 164

Did I ever say that steroids = scoring? I think steroids = power. And I'm not sure that I have any sort of theory.

And can you really say that HRs really declined after 2000? The biggest, sustained decline was really after 2006.

[Brisco]

Baseball has a tremendous number of variables that affect play, and some of these can be somewhat isolated and evaluated by statistics. PEDs are not one of them.

I believe that PEDs were a significant benefit to subset of the players that took them. This subset included:

1) The Injured
2) The Old
3) The Workoholics

PEDs will not allow someone like me to hit a major league fastball. However, they have been scientifically proven to aid in the healing and recovery process. That is uncontroverted scientific fact. It has been shown by the detailed scientific studies used for FDA approval.

As a result, players who took PEDs recovered from injury quicker, were able to stress their bodies more in work-outs, and ultimately were able to extend their careers. Again, this has not been controverted.

It does not matter whether there was a surge in home runs league wide or not for PED use to seriously hurt baseball. Even if Bonds was the only player to have actually benefitted from steroid use, it still was a serious blow to the fans.

Think of it this way... even if there was only one player in MLB that was throwing games because of gambling issues,if we did not know which one, every single game would be suspect.

As I said in another thread, we are ok with cheating in baseball as long as it happens during the game and it is something that the Umps can catch. Cheating that happens off the field in bathrooms or dark alleys? That's the kind that takes away belief in the sport.

BTW, I find it specious for anyone to argue that Bonds' (and Sosa and McGwire) performance was not aided significantly by steroids. I know correlation does not equal causation, but c'mon. If you were in Vegas and you had to bet your life's savings on if the statement "Barry Bonds' baseball performance was aided by taking prohibited substances" was true or false... is there anyone that would seriously pick "false."?

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

It has likely been going on for years, at some level, however it is pretty clear that it did not have the same effect 30 years ago that it does today.

That's when other aspects of the game come in, smaller parks (the death of the multi use stadium for one) and the inevitable the ball has been changed (it's been done several times before and increased and decreased scoring)

Leaning on the magic pill = HR's theory is just a part of the equation IMO, and ignoring the other aspects (or denying they have an effect) is missing the big picture view of the game and the numerous other factors that play into scoring

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Brisco

PEDs will not allow someone like me to hit a major league fastball. However, they have been scientifically proven to aid in the healing and recovery process. That is uncontroverted scientific fact. It has been shown by the detailed scientific studies used for FDA approval.

As a result, players who took PEDs recovered from injury quicker, were able to stress their bodies more in work-outs, and ultimately were able to extend their careers. Again, this has not been controverted.

One thing I think has been overlooked and which you infer is the relationship between physical ability and mental ability.

While players physically peak in their 20's, they continually gain mental "skill" throughout their career. Part of what determines a player's peak is the degree to which these two opposing trends offset each other (or fail to do so). With PED, the player can maintain his physical talent for longer in his career. In these cases, instead of the loss of physical ability being only somewhat offset by improved knowledge/approach, the gain in knowledge/approach can show up as a performance boost from a more static physical baseline.

In this way, PED don't necessarily have to enhance physical ability above their player's natural ability so long as it lets them keep their ability at its max while they improve mentally. For example having Bonds or McGwire's late 30s brain in a much younger body could produce greater production even if they didn't add physical ability per se'.

That's not to say that PED don't create greater physical ability, only that they don't need to do so to have a net performance boost.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by westofyou

That's when other aspects of the game come in, smaller parks (the death of the multi use stadium for one) and the inevitable the ball has been changed (it's been done several times before and increased and decreased scoring)

Leaning on the magic pill = HR's theory is just a part of the equation IMO, and ignoring the other aspects (or denying they have an effect) is missing the big picture view of the game and the numerous other factors that play into scoring

Or the fact that society caught up with the science. The telephone was around way before the iPhone.

[jojo]

Steroids help position players AND pitchers. The actual impact of PEDs on the scoring environment is more complex than simply looking at HR totals for many reasons.

[jojo]

DP

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by jojo

Steroids help position players AND pitchers. The actual impact of PEDs on the scoring environment is more complex than simply looking at HR totals for many reasons.

Sure. And we have seen some sick performances out of pitchers who used as well.