Bonds. Homerun king.

[Illinest]

Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball

Don't rely on your prejudices. You read this article and you learn the truth about PEDs.
It's simple, very cut and dry. Steroids do not increase homeruns.

 

[recon]

You believe this shit?

 

[Illinest]

I'll mark you down for not bothering to read it.

 

[Illinest]

Alright - let's start with credibility.

The writer is a man name Eric Walker. Engineering degree from Renssalear Polytechnic Institute. Baseball statistical analyst for 30 years. Freelance radio reporter covering 162 games a year for most of that time. Author of a book called "The Sinister First Baseman"
Alan Schwartz relates in "The Numbers Game" an anecdote that has Sandy Alderson coming across a copy of that book and embracing the ideas which are later popularized by Billy Beane with "Moneyball"

What you should take from this is that this guy is basically the godfather of statistical analysis.

For my part I had no idea that this page existed until I saw Keith Law's tweet from earlier today that says "Yes, tremendous stuff. "@peachesnnuts: @keithlaw I assume you have seen Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball changed how i feel about steroids""

So I'll start by assuming that there isn't a single person here who is more credible than either Walker or Law. That means that if you want to dispute the article you're going to need to do some work. Make a specific point if you think you're up to it.

 

[thecrow124]

I find it hard to believe almost anything Keith Law says or writes. It is a personal thing. He doesn't watch baseball, I am not even sure he likes baseball, he is just a numbers geek.

 

[magnumo]

Here are a couple of observations:

1. The charts in the (extra-long) summary end with the year 2007. MLB's 50-game suspension policy didn't go into effect until 2006. IIRC, the number of tests per player has increased since 2006. So..... it wasn't until 2006 and beyond that major league players had a major incentive to get off steroids.

2. MLB offense has been declining steadily since 2006. Here are the per/game numbers for all 30 MLB teams added together, for each season since 2006 (from Baseball Reference):

year....runs....hits.....2B......HR....RBI.....BA....OBP...SLG....OPS
2006...4.86....9.28...1.88...1.11...4.63...269...337....432....768
2007...4.80....9.25...1.89...1.02...4.58...268...336....423....758
2008...4.65....9.06...1.86...1.00...4.44...264...333....416....749
2009...4.61....8.96...1.80...1.04...4.40...262...333....418....751
2010...4.38....8.76...1.75...0.95...4.17...257...325....403....728
2011...4.28....8.70...1.73...0.94...4.08...255...321....399....720

Those numbers (and the consistent downward trends) are pretty compelling evidence that SOMETHING has changed in MLB, resulting in a pretty significant decline in offense.

I admit that I haven't taken the time to read all the details..... and I'm NOT asserting that the author is wrong..... but I WOULD like to see his data and charts extended to include MLB's enforcement period.

Note: I don't know why the OBP numbers show up with a space after the first digit. I typed no such space. Please ignore it, and read the OBP numbers as you would normally.

 

[Illinest]

I can give you a version of what you're asking for.

If you use a simplified version of the method used in the article to figure out the number of hits that are homeruns you come up with the following figures
.119
.110
.110
.116
.108
.108

Now I want to clarify - I used HR/game divided by hits/game. The author of the article actually used PF which also factors in doubles and triples but he demonstrated that the two figures are essentially the same in his article so here you can see some hard numbers.

Using runs per game is an obfuscation. Runs per game have gone down significantly in that time period, but the proportion of all hits that left the yard has stayed pretty flat.

 

[Smoke]

Bonds was a roider. No doubt about it.

 

[Illinest]

Now let me put this in perspective, since there are some variations in the 6 figures that I gave. I want to return this to proportion for everyone.

During the first six decades of the 20th century the adjusted power factor rose from 1.27 to 1.47. That's an increase of 16%.
The 'steroid era' saw an adjusted power factor that started at 1.36 and ended at 1.35. Essentially no change, and even the highest power factor of the modern era was lower than almost every year of the 1950s.
If you want to investigate an abnormally high power output then why not investigate the 1950s? That's the highest there ever was.

 

[Darkstone42]

It's really hard to isolate the hitters in a vacuum to do this analysis since the level of power and offense is often dictated just as much by pitching. I think pitching is legitimately deeper now that it was even just five years ago, and I think that is having just as much, if not more effect on power numbers in that span.

I also don't think steroids and other performance enhancing drugs really do all that much for guys. Maybe speed can help them focus better, but in baseball, being stronger doesn't necessarily mean more homeruns. Being stronger doesn't necessarily improve hand action or swing mechanics, and it certainly doesn't help guys make squarer contact. In fact, I could see it having a negative effect on certain facets of a player's swing.

 

[Illinest]

It's really hard to isolate the hitters in a vacuum to do this analysis since the level of power and offense is often dictated just as much by pitching. I think pitching is legitimately deeper now that it was even just five years ago, and I think that is having just as much, if not more effect on power numbers in that span.

I also don't think steroids and other performance enhancing drugs really do all that much for guys. Maybe speed can help them focus better, but in baseball, being stronger doesn't necessarily mean more homeruns. Being stronger doesn't necessarily improve hand action or swing mechanics, and it certainly doesn't help guys make squarer contact. In fact, I could see it having a negative effect on certain facets of a player's swing.

That was covered in the article.

For this thought experiment, I used ratios of both 4:1 and a more moderate 3:1 upper/lower differential. I'll take the example of that 200-pound man who adds 20 extra pounds of pure muscle, a pretty substantial gain (and almost identical to that attributed to Barry Bonds).

Skipping over the arithmetic, if the upper/lower ration is 4:1, he'll be able to drive the ball an extra 30 inches or so; if it's 3:1, that would go up to maybe 45 inches.

Right away, we see that that's not much. And remember, too, that we have assigned all of his muscle gain to steroids, which is just silly: if he went through the same exercise regime without any steroids, he'd still gain some significant muscle. Just what does 2 to 4 extra feet mean? It's hard to say, but (and the line of thought is on the longer page) that kind of difference--that is, without the extra muscle the ball falls 2 to 4 feet short but with it it just clears the fence--might mean one extra home run a year for an average man; and, again, the purely steroidal component might not even mean that. So it's not at all surprising that the actual stats of the game show no effect from putative steroid use, bulked-up biceps or no.

Confirming Studies

As I remarked above, there are at least five other studies--all listed and linked on the longer page--all based on sophisticated analysis of real data, and each using a different approach, that each reach the same basic conclusion: there is no visible effect attributable to steroids. In the most mathematically dense and rigorous paper, its author, Professor Arthur DeVany, spares no words:
There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home-run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids.

 

[Darkstone42]

That was covered in the article.

Yeah, I'll have time to actually read it in a few days. I was just going off what I know about baseball and my intuition. :p

 

[powerchord86]

 

[thedddd]

I didn't take the time to read all of this yet (I wll though) but the only compelling thing I can think of that PED's would help with is bat speed. The faster the bat the better chance for power. It will never change their approach to hitting even in Bonds case before his head grew double the size he was a HOF caliber hitter.

During this decline in hitting there can be other factors also involved, plenty of new ball parks, a lot better pitching and not sure if others feel this but the hitting discipline has gotten a LOT worse.

Anyway I do agree PED's will not make a career .220 under .700 OPS hitter that k's 150+ times into a .280 hitter, over .700 OPS, that k's 80 times.

 

[Illinest]

If you go back to the chart of adjusted power factor over time you will observe that adjusted power factor rose steadily until about the 50s and then it fell off steadily through the 70s.

Perhaps that coincides with the development of the bullpen? Based on a little bit of quick research it seems that it wasn't until the 50s that teams started to employ closers regularly and from there we continued with set-up men and LOOGYs and long relievers and pitch counts.

I bring this up again because I believe that the peak of the 50s is much more interesting than the alleged power surge of the modern era.

And let me be clear again - I'm not suggesting that people aren't hitting more homeruns nowadays. They clearly are, but it's because the baseball has been 'improved' a number of times since stats were first tracked. These are referred to as 'discontinuities' in the article that I linked to and you can see from the unadjusted rates that homeruns have grown steadily more prevalent throughout the entire century.

MLB has steadfastly denied all of those ball juicings, no matter their obviousness or the actual events (manufacturing processes, for example) associated with them. Mind, except for (probably) the original rabbit ball, it may well be that the jumps were unplanned--incidental effects of innovations in the manufacturing process. But to deny that they did happen, when they happened, and that they were definite, discrete events requires a massive dedication to belief in the Tooth Fairy.

Because the ball-juicing discontinuities are critical, we can and should look further into the evidences for them. Of course, the very first consideration is that they are exactly what we are calling them: discontinuities. They are not increases, even rapid increases: they are each a sudden large jump from one season to another, with both the pre-jump seasons and the post-jump seasons being clearly continuous eras separated by an overnight (or, in fact, over-winter) abyss. No theory that relies on any gradual process, even a pretty fast-acting one, can possibly explain the "step" nature of those power jumps.

 

[smokeyburgess]

Anybody who believes PEDs don't enhance performance must turn a blind eye to the ridiculous stats posted by McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, etc. After MLB finally tightened down the screws, no one has even come close to those numbers, and as Magnumo demonstrated, the overall numbers have declined steadily since 2006.

When you look at the bodies of those three men, there can be no doubt that PEDs increased their overall bulk, and probably their strength, but I believe (along with ddd) the crucial difference was that PEDs increased bat speed. Bat speed is difficult to measure, but it would only take the slightest increase to make a dramatic difference in one's hitting performance.

Why all players who did PEDs didn't have such a significant power surge is debatable, but it would seem reasonable to conclude that those three players were already blessed with superior bat speed and it was enhanced by the use of PEDs and an intensive workout program. The performance of players with less ability and less drive would improve, but not nearly as much as that of players with greater natural ability.

Finally, a word about Eric Walker. I skimmed the article, and while he makes some compelling arguments against the notion that PEDs increased performance in baseball, one argument is particularly weak and calls into question his own ability (or willingness) to see the overall picture. It is his "apples and oranges" logic about what is "natural" and "unnatural" for baseball players to use to assist their performance:

The argument focus is "natural" versus "unnatural" properties. The thrust of the position is that PEDs should be banned because they are "unnatural" aids to performance, the implication being that sports are otherwise pristine Greek exhibitions of pure natural bodily endowments.

This one is another nasal milk fountain. Do we ban eyeglasses, contact lenses, or Lasik surgery for ballplayers? Do we ban ice packs for pitchers arms? Do we ban cleats? Or, closer to target, do we ban carb loading or high-calorie diets or the Atkins plan? Can a man with a sore throat take a cough drop? Can a man with a headache take a Tylenol? Do we regulate the amount of exercise they can do? Only 10 squats a day? Maybe no exercise at all other than actual play? Well, obviously one could string this sort of foolishness out forever, but the very reason it is foolishness is that it reflects the inherent foolishness of the "unnaturalness" theory of prohibition.

Comparing the use of PEDs to wearing eyeglasses or exercising is absolutely ridiculous. If that's the best Walker can do, he needs to go back to the drawing board. Perhaps his nose is so buried into his seemingly endless pages of statistics that he can't see what is obvious to almost everyone else.

 

[grayghost668]

I don't care let them use them or anything else they want,,,,,they are only hurting themselfs

 

[Illinest]

Actually the 'best' walker could do is demonstrate that all of the big jumps in power over the last century were related to improvements in the quality of the ball. And i did already demonstrate that magnumos stats showed a decrease in contact. NOT a decrease in power.

 

[magnumo]

Actually the 'best' walker could do is demonstrate that all of the big jumps in power over the last century were related to improvements in the quality of the ball. And i did already demonstrate that magnumos stats showed a decrease in contact. NOT a decrease in power.[/QUOTE]

In my view, Illinest, you didn't demonstrate that at all.

The numbers you posted show a decrease in home runs per hit, albeit a somewhat smaller decrease than the numbers I posted. But, mathematically speaking, with both hits and home runs showing significant decreases, I would expect the decrease in home runs per hit to be somewhat less.

A steady decrease in hits, doubles, home runs, batting average, slugging percentage, and OPS (and even runs and RBIs) indicates a decline in power, as well as overall batting prowess, in my opinion. These trends (as well as less contact and less effective contact) are consistent with decreased strength and bat speed.

Here's another view: The numbers below are the combined total HR's hit by the top 10 home run hitters in MLB for the years in question.

2006--462
2007--411
2008--384
2009--410
2010--380
2011--377

That trend also is clearly downward. However, "only" 6 seasons is a small sample..... and perhaps someone will discover that the baseball has been "un-juiced" during that period. Nevertheless, with MLB's testing for HGH commencing next season, presumably the use of that "PED" should decline as well. It will be interesting to follow what happens with offensive stats over the next several seasons.

 

[Illinest]

Go ahead and look at the following chart.

2006 and 2007 are represented in the data. They've been there from the start. The fact that you arbitrarily extended the 'missing' years to include an isolated peak in 2006 is fishy.

So look at that entire chart. The supposed 'steroid' effect is dwarfed by the huge peak in 1985 and 1986 and 1987.
I wonder if you attribute that peak to steroids as well?
HR figures are meaningless without comparing it to the total number of hits. There are many things that can change the number of homeruns per year. As far as I'm concerned you could be demonstrating that the quality of pitching improved, or you could be demonstrating that the umpires expanded their strikezone, or maybe the composition of the ball changed, or maybe the new ballparks were dampening power or some other factor that I can't anticipate.
But you haven't done anything to demonstrate that the struck balls are traveling farther.