Comprehensive Analysis: Steroids and Baseball

[mweb]

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

It's very long, but an interesting and compelling analysis.

Joe Posnanski's take on it.

[DrungoHazewood]

The web page is kind crazy and unprofessional looking and hard to follow. But I've long believed that PEDs were just one part (and possibly a rather small part) of the offensive explosion in the '90s. We'll never know for sure, but I think it's certainly possible that the ball is by far the biggest culprit. With bats being second. There have just been too many power/offense spikes in history that can be pretty conclusively linked to changes in the ball.

[JamesI]

The web page is kind crazy and unprofessional looking and hard to follow. But I've long believed that PEDs were just one part (and possibly a rather small part) of the offensive explosion in the '90s. We'll never know for sure, but I think it's certainly possible that the ball is by far the biggest culprit. With bats being second. There have just been too many power/offense spikes in history that can be pretty conclusively linked to changes in the ball.

Any claim that steroids/PEDs have no effect is crazy (though it is likely the effect is less than that of the changes to the ball/ballparks/expansion).

If PEDs have no effect, why do players still continue to use them? And the NFL players of the 70s/80s now with serious health issues (or have passed on) would likely question his conclusion that PEDs have no adverse health affect.

[DrungoHazewood]

Any claim that steroids/PEDs have no effect is crazy (though it is likely the effect is less than that of the changes to the ball/ballparks/expansion).

If PEDs have no effect, why do players still continue to use them? And the NFL players of the 70s/80s now with serious health issues (or have passed on) would likely question his conclusion that PEDs have no adverse health affect.

Why do players continue to cork their bats when every serious study of the issue has shown corked bats to be no better than non-corked bats?

I don't think PEDs have no effect. But I think they're one of many reasons for the offense of the 1990s and 2000s. And probably not even the biggest reason.

[mweb]

Any claim that steroids/PEDs have no effect is crazy (though it is likely the effect is less than that of the changes to the ball/ballparks/expansion).

If PEDs have no effect, why do players still continue to use them? And the NFL players of the 70s/80s now with serious health issues (or have passed on) would likely question his conclusion that PEDs have no adverse health affect.

I do think steroids/PED'S have some effect on HR's/player performance; however, he did make a good point about the corked bats.

His conclusuon isn't that PED's have no adverse health effect, rather that they rarely do. Like with most drugs, they can be abused and/or have adverse side effects on some percentage of the population. But most of the research I've seen agree with his conclusion, which is based on research itself. BTW, modern PED's are likely to be less dangerous than their predecessors.

[JamesI]

I do think steroids/PED'S have some effect on HR's/player performance; however, he did make a good point about the corked bats.

His conclusuon isn't that PED's have no adverse health effect, rather that they rarely do. Like with most drugs, they can be abused and/or have adverse side effects on some percentage of the population. But most of the research I've seen agree with his conclusion, which is based on research itself. BTW, modern PED's are likely to be less dangerous than their predecessors.

Oh, I'm sure the PEDs of today are less dangerous than the PEDs of the 70s. But we still see kids killed because of them.

As Drungo said, we'll never know the exact effect. For all we know, steroids/hGH had no effect on McGwire or Bonds. Or, McGwire may have never made it back from his injuries in the early 90s without them. We don't (and never will) know. (Its also possible McGwires injuries at the end of his career would have been less severe had he not used PEDs and his career could have been longer)

This is a situation where we will never know what those who cheated's results would have been otherwise.

[mweb]

Oh, I'm sure the PEDs of today are less dangerous than the PEDs of the 70s. But we still see kids killed because of them.

As Drungo said, we'll never know the exact effect. For all we know, steroids/hGH had no effect on McGwire or Bonds. Or, McGwire may have never made it back from his injuries in the early 90s without them. We don't (and never will) know. (Its also possible McGwires injuries at the end of his career would have been less severe had he not used PEDs and his career could have been longer)

This is a situation where we will never know what those who cheated's results would have been otherwise.

He even says that they are dangerous for kids, not so much for adults.

Regardless of how much we can or will know, Eric Walker, and then Posnanski, both make very good points imo regarding how steroids in baseball should be viewed, which is a lot different than how most view them now.

More of an open mind and greater education on the subject and less hysteria, generalizations, and quick assumptions would be a start.

[JamesI]

More of an open mind and greater education on the subject and less hysteria, generalizations, and quick assumptions would be a start.

I actually find this part insulting. The assumption that everyone in the "Anti-steroids" group is suffering from hysteria and not being educated is quite annoying. People can come to differing opinions rationally. Just because I disagree with him/you/Drungo does not automatically make me wrong/hysterical.

[BaltimoreTerp]

I actually find this part insulting. The assumption that everyone in the "Anti-steroids" group is suffering from hysteria and not being educated is quite annoying. People can come to differing opinions rationally. Just because I disagree with him/you/Drungo does not automatically make me wrong/hysterical.

I don't think he's speaking specifically about you, but more in general at the way many fans and (mostly) media act at the mere mention of steroids, or when someone suddenly has a big season (just see the several individual threads over the past months on this board making accusations about Jose Bautista).

[JamesI]

Remember, nothing is alleged to--or can have--happened to all of MLB over some one or two seasons: the claim is that PEDs were being used at a slowly but steadily increasing rate (and thus "distorting records") from very roughly 1980 through the present. Were that so, or anything like it, we would expect to see a clear long-term uptrend during this period. But we don't: we see a nearly flat line that, if anything, slopes slightly down. The "boost" just isn't there. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone from talking about it.

Right here he assumes steroid use has increased, and since his stats show no power increase, clearly steroid have no effect.

Or how about an alternate theory. Steroid use has remained relatively constant since the 80s.

[mweb]

I actually find this part insulting. The assumption that everyone in the "Anti-steroids" group is suffering from hysteria and not being educated is quite annoying. People can come to differing opinions rationally. Just because I disagree with him/you/Drungo does not automatically make me wrong/hysterical.

I didn't say you were and that is not my assumption.

The point is there are a lot of people who have big opinions on this on both sides who haven't done much research and are willing to simply go along with the generic opinions.

[DrungoHazewood]

I actually find this part insulting. The assumption that everyone in the "Anti-steroids" group is suffering from hysteria and not being educated is quite annoying. People can come to differing opinions rationally. Just because I disagree with him/you/Drungo does not automatically make me wrong/hysterical.

It is possible to come to different conclusions without being hysterical. But I think you'd have to agree that the tone of the overwhelming percentages of articles on the subject is something along the lines of "those cheaters ruined my beautiful game and no punishment could be harsh enough."

[mweb]

Right here he assumes steroid use has increased, and since his stats show no power increase, clearly steroid have no effect.

Or how about an alternate theory. Steroid use has remained relatively constant since the 80s.

According to his method, it didn't go up in the 80's compared to the the 60's and 70's though.

[JamesI]

It is possible to come to different conclusions without being hysterical. But I think you'd have to agree that the tone of the overwhelming percentages of articles on the subject is something along the lines of "those cheaters ruined my beautiful game and no punishment could be harsh enough."

Are we talking legit articles (such as published in SI or newspapers) or fan blogs?

Sure, several fans take the steroid issue too far. The game is clearly not ruined. Financial issues are far more of a detriment to the game than steroids. Some of the media does as well.

Of course, I think the punishments are a joke in baseball (and other sports as well, not trying to single out baseball).

[JamesI]

According to his method, it didn't go up in the 80's compared to the the 60's and 70's though.

And according to several players, steroid use was rampant then too. Of course, we have no way to know if the great "clean" records were really "clean".