Bonds. Homerun king.

[thecrow124]

Illinest, the factor that you and the editorial are both missing is that steroids do not increase a person's power, or strength. In all actuality they don't even have a direct correlation. Steroids in fact decrease the body's amount of time needed to recover from strenuous work.
If you accept that as a fact, which it is, then you must realize that if the body can recover faster, then it would be more powerful later into the season than if the player were not on steroids. Studies into the effects of steroids on fast twitch and slow twitch muscles have for the most part been inconclusive.
However, if a player is graced with a lot of fast twitch muscles, that would mean he could have exceptional bat speed, and if he were genetically gifted enough to also have a lot of strength, he could generate a lot of power with his elevated bat speed. The last factor is where steroids plays the biggest role and that is if he can maintain BOTH for a longer duration during a baseball season, he would hit for more power.
Therefore, the decrease in hits, and HR/hit can BOTH be attributed to the SAME factor, in this case steroids. i.e. if a player is getting tired earlier and earlier in a season, his total number of hits and total bases would both be decreased.
The facts remain though that it takes an amazing amount of talent to hit a baseball, let alone hit it with enough power to make it travel 400 feet. Steroids may not have a direct correlation to that distance, but it does affect the number of times a player could do that in a season.

 

[element1286]

Illinest, the factor that you and the editorial are both missing is that steroids do not increase a person's power, or strength. In all actuality they don't even have a direct correlation. Steroids in fact decrease the body's amount of time needed to recover from strenuous work. If you accept that as a fact, which it is, then you must realize that if the body can recover faster, then it would be more powerful later into the season than if the player were not on steroids. Studies into the effects of steroids on fast twitch and slow twitch muscles have for the most part been inconclusive.
However, if a player is graced with a lot of fast twitch muscles, that would mean he could have exceptional bat speed, and if he were genetically gifted enough to also have a lot of strength, he could generate a lot of power with his elevated bat speed. The last factor is where steroids plays the biggest role and that is if he can maintain BOTH for a longer duration during a baseball season, he would hit for more power.
Therefore, the decrease in hits, and HR/hit can BOTH be attributed to the SAME factor, in this case steroids. i.e. if a player is getting tired earlier and earlier in a season, his total number of hits and total bases would both be decreased.

Although I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, I agree with crow that it isn't about raw power, but it is about keeping the body in peak condition longer, or at least that is the most telling affect.

 

[magnumo]

Illinest..... I have indicated all along that I'm NOT asserting that the author is wrong..... just that I'm not convinced.

My starting with 2006 was not arbitrary. I selected 2006 for the reason I've already stated, i.e., that was the year that MLB put "teeth" (50-game suspension for the first offense) into their steroids policy for the first time. I'm kind of disappointed that you characterize that as "fishy" when it appears to me to be the best possible starting point for examining the period when the use of steroids should be significantly reduced.

By the way, the chart in your post does NOT show (at least for me) an "isolated peak" in 2006..... but looks much more like normal oscillation of any reasonably consistent data. (The higher "peaks" in 2000, 2001 and 2004 serve to confirm this observation)

I have no opinion about the mid-80's peak (I haven't researched it) EXCEPT to say that it's not nearly as big a peak as the graph construction makes it appear. The highest point (1987) is only 6% higher than the slope line. Mathematically speaking, that's not very significant.

I disagree emphatically that the decline in home runs is meaningless EXCEPT when expressed as a percentage of hits. But even when you do that, home runs per hit have declined. (As has every other offensive stat listed previously.)

Yes, it's true that the decline in offense (and power) could result from an improvement in the quality of pitching, or an expansion of the strike zone, or the composition of the ball, or the new ballparks..... or getting steroids out of the game..... or some combination thereof.

Finally, I was not attempting to demonstrate that struck balls are traveling farther (or less far). Actually, I don't care whether a home run travels 350 feet or 500 feet. A home run is a home run. In my opinion, the number of home runs is FAR more significant than how far home runs travel.

In my opinion, the steady decline in the number of home runs AND the steady decline in slugging percentage (as well as the declines in all those other offensive parameters) are clear and simple indicators that power is on the wane in MLB..... for whatever reason.

It's obvious that you're convinced that steroids have no "performance enhancing" effect and are not part of that reason..... and that's OK. I'm NOT convinced..... and I hope that's OK with you.

 

[Illinest]

Illinest, the factor that you and the editorial are both missing is that steroids do not increase a person's power, or strength. In all actuality they don't even have a direct correlation. Steroids in fact decrease the body's amount of time needed to recover from strenuous work.
If you accept that as a fact, which it is, then you must realize that if the body can recover faster, then it would be more powerful later into the season than if the player were not on steroids. Studies into the effects of steroids on fast twitch and slow twitch muscles have for the most part been inconclusive.
However, if a player is graced with a lot of fast twitch muscles, that would mean he could have exceptional bat speed, and if he were genetically gifted enough to also have a lot of strength, he could generate a lot of power with his elevated bat speed. The last factor is where steroids plays the biggest role and that is if he can maintain BOTH for a longer duration during a baseball season, he would hit for more power.
Therefore, the decrease in hits, and HR/hit can BOTH be attributed to the SAME factor, in this case steroids. i.e. if a player is getting tired earlier and earlier in a season, his total number of hits and total bases would both be decreased.
The facts remain though that it takes an amazing amount of talent to hit a baseball, let alone hit it with enough power to make it travel 400 feet. Steroids may not have a direct correlation to that distance, but it does affect the number of times a player could do that in a season.

You seem to be suggesting that steroids increase all types of hits. Thats a different take, but why didnt we see a .400 hitter then? We saw three players break maris' single season homerun record but we didnt see anyone getting .400. I dont see anyone talking about how many hits weve seen, but lots of whining about how far the ball is going. Cant have it both ways. I am also going to continue to insist that those who believe in the effects of steroids at least come up with some sort of a plausible explanation for the 50s and that spike in the mid 80s. Both of which were of much greater magnitude than any supposed increase during the 80s.

For my part i believe that the tiny hump that you see in the 90s and 00s is primarily attributable to the billy beane approach that advocated cust and dunn-like patient hitters. It was about five years ago that teams started looking for value in speed and defense again. There was an obvious shift in teambuilding priorities during the time period in question. Two actually - the original moneyball approach and the newer version that values speed and defense. These competing philosophies align very well with the data presented and make a lot more sense than a supposed power surge that anyone should be able to see just doesn't make sense.

 

[smokeyburgess]

For my part i believe that the tiny hump that you see in the 90s and 00s is primarily attributable to the billy beane approach that advocated cust and dunn-like patient hitters. It was about five years ago that teams started looking for value in speed and defense again. There was an obvious shift in teambuilding priorities during the time period in question. Two actually - the original moneyball approach and the newer version that values speed and defense. These competing philosophies align very well with the data presented and make a lot more sense than a supposed power surge that anyone should be able to see just doesn't make sense.

Illinest: Perhaps the trend toward speed and defense since 2006 was due to the fact that MLB finally made it difficult to get away with using steroids. The probability of home runs dropped, so teams started to return to a traditional NL-style game to score runs. As for the spike in HRs during the
50s and mid-80s, that has been a point of speculation for years, and may have been due to a combination of various factors such as ballpark size, strike zone size, etc., etc., etc. In my opinion, the spike was largely due to changes in the manufacturing of baseballs. Whenever the game seemed to be in need of a boost in power, the balls seemed to become tighter and harder and flew further. Of course, MLB has always denied this, but who believes what men like the current commissioner has to say anyway.

Whatever the reason for those spikes, however, no one hit HRs like the "Big Three" did in the 90s. Something was up, and it wasn't just changes in ballparks, strike zones, baseballs, etc. The big difference was steroid use.

 

[Illinest]

What was 'up' was a professional climate that said it was okay to strike out as long as you worked the count and hit the ball long. I believe it was that and nothing more.

Well... I think Walker has as much credibility as anyone else I've read so far with his analysis of muscle mass. Steroids don't directly make muscles but they make your workouts better, so guys that might've added 20 pounds of muscle through conventional methods were adding 30 pounds instead. Walker believes 2 to 4 feet MAX added distance for 30 pounds of pure muscle and I believe that's probably about the most you can expect. He checked into that - what an extra 2 to 4 feet would mean - and found that it might turn 1 or 2 long fly ball outs into homeruns instead.

I can see Bonds maybe hitting 70 homeruns instead of 73 is what I'm saying.
And that brings up another point that no one has been able to explain away. Why did Bonds only hit 40 - 49 homeruns in all of the preceding and following seasons. He was juicing throughout the entire decade right? Why just one isolated peak? Was it selective steroids?
The steroid argument is simply too simplistic. It ignores anything that doesn't seem steroidy in favor of demonizing certain players who were known to be using.
But I honestly believe that Ken Griffey Jr. was using too. That's a whole 'nother argument that I'm not prepared to re-hash right now, but I feel confident enough in that to think that the argument against Bonds is a shit-load of hypocrisy alongside a healthy dose of blinding yourself to any possible alternative.

Going back to the big three - I don't think the steroids turned those three in particular into super-men.
It almost certainly kept them healthy (and therefore you can complain about Aaron's lifetime record if you wish, I won't fight that point) and it may have allowed these players to retain 10-15 pounds of bulk that they wouldn't otherwise have had. That bulk may have resulted in an extra 2 or 3 homeruns at max.
But the moneyball approach happened during the same time period. It occurred alongside a new age of statistical analysis that began to de-emphasize traditional truisms like avoiding the SO. I think it's very odd that people are arguing against this point while arguing for the steroid argument. I think you're letting your feelings get in the way, personally.
Bonds, McGuire and Sosa hit as many homeruns as they did because it was the first time in history that sluggers were consistently swinging for the fences in all counts and situations. That's all the explanation that decade needs.

 

[element1286]

The steroid argument is simply too simplistic. It ignores anything that doesn't seem steroidy in favor of demonizing certain players who were known to be using.

I 100% with you here. It was one of the factors, maybe even the biggest factor, but it wasn't the only factor.

But I honestly believe that Ken Griffey Jr. was using too. That's a whole 'nother argument that I'm not prepared to re-hash right now

I agree, I hear so many people say "he wasn't a user," not referring to just Griffey but dozens of players, what exactly are they basing this on? I'm not saying that he did use, but there is not one players from that era who can be identified as "clean," definitively.

That being said I don't care who used, I don't need names, I know a large % were using, and that is enough information for me. I like that the game is being cleaned up, because I would rather not have it in sports. But the excrutiating detail of names/hearsay naseuates me.

 

[Voltaire26]

Bonds was a roider. No doubt about it.

I am not a Barry Bonds fan, actually I kinda dislike him ... I think he is an arrogant asshole. Everyone suspected he was doing steroids. And if everyone suspected he was doing steroids, many MANY more were doing steriods. I would have used steroids if it could have gotten me promoted from Class A to AA and so on ... So in my humble opinion, just about everyone was doing steroids (except maybe the Detroit Tigers we sucked back then).

One must also consider that Bonds was facing pitchers who were on steroids.

Conclusion: Leave Barry Bonds alone and elect him into the Hall of Fame (he deserves it).

 

[Ginger]

I think what we have here are a couple of things in play.

1. Illogically thinking that Steroids only affects home runs being hit.
2. Thinking that only hitters are using steroids.
3. Voodoo statistics.

They came out with the "juiced ball" theory at the onset of the explosion. A lot of people bought into that one but then it was completely discredited. Now we have reprisal. For what purpose?

Also, what is to gain by continually denying that performance enhancing drugs actually work? I saw with my own eyes Ben Johnson dominate the Olympics. I friggin' saw it. He blew Carl Lewis away. Something he could never have done without the assistance of steroids. It was the equivalent of Gay beating Bolt by 10 feet. Never going to happen on its own. Never.

Also, there are a lot of smart people on here. People who are well educated and in fields related to biology or medicine or sports physiology. People should not take writers like Keith Law as authority figures on anything. They are writers. Their degree usually was in writing. Lots of them don't even have degrees. Lots don't even have any experience in the field they write about.

 

[Illinest]

I think what we have here are a couple of things in play.

1. Illogically thinking that Steroids only affects home runs being hit.
2. Thinking that only hitters are using steroids.
3. Voodoo statistics.

They came out with the "juiced ball" theory at the onset of the explosion. A lot of people bought into that one but then it was completely discredited. Now we have reprisal. For what purpose?

Also, what is to gain by continually denying that performance enhancing drugs actually work? I saw with my own eyes Ben Johnson dominate the Olympics. I friggin' saw it. He blew Carl Lewis away. Something he could never have done without the assistance of steroids. It was the equivalent of Gay beating Bolt by 10 feet. Never going to happen on its own. Never.

Also, there are a lot of smart people on here. People who are well educated and in fields related to biology or medicine or sports physiology. People should not take writers like Keith Law as authority figures on anything. They are writers. Their degree usually was in writing. Lots of them don't even have degrees. Lots don't even have any experience in the field they write about.

The source is walker. Law was mentioned only to trace my source and (just being honest) even a sportswriter like law ought to be considered more credible on this issue than the average forum-goer. Lets not get too excited over all the physiology phds that might be lurking this forum.

And i have to ask again - if steroids increases all types of hits (and especially where roiding hitters would presumably be taking advantage of pitchers who arent on steroids) then there shouldve been a .400 hitter somewhere in this time frame. That wouldnt even be a record mind you.

The anecdote about a completely different (simpler) sport is amusing but not particularly relevant. Just like counting the number of homeruns hit in a season in no way demonstrates a steroid effect.

 

[Darkstone42]

Shouldn't we all want performance enhancing drugs to be ineffective at enhancing performance? If they are ineffective, that means there's no benefit to using them, which means their impact is entirely negative, which means people will stop using them.

Baseball is a skill sport. I don't think steroids can possibly help a huge amount in a skill sport like baseball, because they don't enhance skill. They improve recovery, but they don't enhance skill. Steroids are effective for linemen and linebackers in football, who need to be strong and fast above pretty much all else, runners, weight lifters, and probably wrestlers, but I don't think they're all that effective in improving baseball players.

 

[stillmatic32]

I got an idea. I'm gonna hit 25 baseballs at 70 MPH and measure the farthest one. Then I'm gonna do 2 cycles of roids, hit 25 baseballs at 70MPH, and measure the farthest one.

 

[Illinest]

I got an idea. I'm gonna hit 25 baseballs at 70 MPH and measure the farthest one. Then I'm gonna do 2 cycles of roids, hit 25 baseballs at 70MPH, and measure the farthest one.

In all seriousness - I've been wondering if it would be possible to get Adam and Jamie on the case. Get some mythbusters action going. I obviously feel that it is a myth that steroids alone could get Bonds up to 73 homeruns (from where-ever his supposed 'non-steroid' peak would've been)
I could see 3 homeruns extra. Max.

And perhaps we could see Kari in a baseball uniform. Hot.

 

[26 elroy face]

Wouldn't repeated cycles increase the bat speed. I saw what it did for Palmero, and Anderson.

 

[stillmatic32]

In all seriousness - I've been wondering if it would be possible to get Adam and Jamie on the case. Get some mythbusters action going. I obviously feel that it is a myth that steroids alone could get Bonds up to 73 homeruns (from where-ever his supposed 'non-steroid' peak would've been)
I could see 3 homeruns extra. Max.

And perhaps we could see Kari in a baseball uniform. Hot.

That would be awesome. Maybe they can outsource the steroid taking to a third world country.

 

[thecrow124]

A couple of things, first off, Ben Johnson could not beat a clean Usain Bolt, so it really doesn't help to prove any theories posed in this topic.

Second, for Illinest, the reason no one hit .400 or more during that time frame is because no one was really trying to, Bonds could have hit .600 simply by hitting the ball to the left side of the infield, and other teams would have allowed it. The biggest reason he didn't hit .400 though is because of how he hit the ball. He was trying to lift everything leading to a lot of long flyball outs and a lot of pop-ups. He was specifically going to the HR record that season, which also would be the contributing factor as to why he never before or after hit more than 49.

If anyone here wants a great breakdown of muscle mass and muscle fibers and how they work together to create movement in the body, much more indepth than anything I could even begin to post on here, find "Lore of Running" at your local library or Barnes and Noble. Honestly the guy that wrote it, Tim Nokes, knows more about muscles than anything I have ever heard come out of a doctor's mouth.

Basically here is what there is to know, in simple terms, to build strength, you need to work the muscle. The more often you can work a muscle, and still get it full recovery, the faster it can gain strength. In essecnce, if you can reduce the time from 2 days to 1 day between workouts on any one muscle group, you have essentially halved the amount of time it would take to gain strength.

Now if you believe that strength and power and speed increases don't help you much, then you cannot fathom the theory that PED could help a baseball player. However if you agree that increasing all three will help you hit a baseball further or carry that strength later into a season when others are wearing down, then it is a pretty easy concept to grasp that PED's would help performance.

 

[Ginger]

A couple of things, first off, Ben Johnson could not beat a clean Usain Bolt, so it really doesn't help to prove any theories posed in this topic.

Second, for Illinest, the reason no one hit .400 or more during that time frame is because no one was really trying to, Bonds could have hit .600 simply by hitting the ball to the left side of the infield, and other teams would have allowed it. The biggest reason he didn't hit .400 though is because of how he hit the ball. He was trying to lift everything leading to a lot of long flyball outs and a lot of pop-ups. He was specifically going to the HR record that season, which also would be the contributing factor as to why he never before or after hit more than 49.

If anyone here wants a great breakdown of muscle mass and muscle fibers and how they work together to create movement in the body, much more indepth than anything I could even begin to post on here, find "Lore of Running" at your local library or Barnes and Noble. Honestly the guy that wrote it, Tim Nokes, knows more about muscles than anything I have ever heard come out of a doctor's mouth.

Basically here is what there is to know, in simple terms, to build strength, you need to work the muscle. The more often you can work a muscle, and still get it full recovery, the faster it can gain strength. In essecnce, if you can reduce the time from 2 days to 1 day between workouts on any one muscle group, you have essentially halved the amount of time it would take to gain strength.

Now if you believe that strength and power and speed increases don't help you much, then you cannot fathom the theory that PED could help a baseball player. However if you agree that increasing all three will help you hit a baseball further or carry that strength later into a season when others are wearing down, then it is a pretty easy concept to grasp that PED's would help performance.

While I agree with what you say I am perplexed about the Ben Johnson thing. I flatly stated that I watched with my own eyes in the Olympics Ben Johnson beating Carl Lewis. I currently do not think it is really possible to beat Usain Bolt in a race where he isn't disqualified which is why I made the remark that Johnson beating Lewis would be akin to Gay beating Bolt.

 

[Illinest]

A couple of things, first off, Ben Johnson could not beat a clean Usain Bolt, so it really doesn't help to prove any theories posed in this topic.

Second, for Illinest, the reason no one hit .400 or more during that time frame is because no one was really trying to, Bonds could have hit .600 simply by hitting the ball to the left side of the infield, and other teams would have allowed it. The biggest reason he didn't hit .400 though is because of how he hit the ball. He was trying to lift everything leading to a lot of long flyball outs and a lot of pop-ups. He was specifically going to the HR record that season, which also would be the contributing factor as to why he never before or after hit more than 49.

If anyone here wants a great breakdown of muscle mass and muscle fibers and how they work together to create movement in the body, much more indepth than anything I could even begin to post on here, find "Lore of Running" at your local library or Barnes and Noble. Honestly the guy that wrote it, Tim Nokes, knows more about muscles than anything I have ever heard come out of a doctor's mouth.

Basically here is what there is to know, in simple terms, to build strength, you need to work the muscle. The more often you can work a muscle, and still get it full recovery, the faster it can gain strength. In essecnce, if you can reduce the time from 2 days to 1 day between workouts on any one muscle group, you have essentially halved the amount of time it would take to gain strength.

Now if you believe that strength and power and speed increases don't help you much, then you cannot fathom the theory that PED could help a baseball player. However if you agree that increasing all three will help you hit a baseball further or carry that strength later into a season when others are wearing down, then it is a pretty easy concept to grasp that PED's would help performance.

I think its interesting that you also believe that a different approach can bring different results. I also proposed that a different approach is the primary cause of the high run totals.
Coincidentally i also admitted that steroids may allow a player to safely carry - say - 30 extra pounds instead of the 20 (perhaps) that the same workout regimen would allow. You still need to work your ass off to get benefits from the steroids. The added bulk doesnt all come from a syringe. It only lets a guy work out more.

But what im still waiting on is for a few of you to admit that an extra 10 to 20 pounds of primarily upper body strength (and i feel i'm being overly generous with those figures) doesn't mean a guy is going to hit 20 extra homeruns.

 

[thecrow124]

While I agree with what you say I am perplexed about the Ben Johnson thing. I flatly stated that I watched with my own eyes in the Olympics Ben Johnson beating Carl Lewis. I currently do not think it is really possible to beat Usain Bolt in a race where he isn't disqualified which is why I made the remark that Johnson beating Lewis would be akin to Gay beating Bolt.

I brought up Bolt because Johnson beat a very old and on the decline Carl Lewis. Looking at your arguement though I realize that you were making a direct comparison, that is not how I initially understood your statement. I appologize.

 

[thecrow124]

I think its interesting that you also believe that a different approach can bring different results. I also proposed that a different approach is the primary cause of the high run totals.
Coincidentally i also admitted that steroids may allow a player to safely carry - say - 30 extra pounds instead of the 20 (perhaps) that the same workout regimen would allow. You still need to work your ass off to get benefits from the steroids. The added bulk doesnt all come from a syringe. It only lets a guy work out more.

But what im still waiting on is for a few of you to admit that an extra 10 to 20 pounds of primarily upper body strength (and i feel i'm being overly generous with those figures) doesn't mean a guy is going to hit 20 extra homeruns.

I never actually said I disagreed with you completely, just giving a differing opinion on what steroids actually do for a person.

However, going back to Bonds, since his name is in the title of the thread, I think he actually packed on somewhere in the vicinity of 60 lbs, not the 30 you contend. Furthermore, I do believe that 30 to 60 lbs of muscle can increase HR totals by as many as 35-40, and I give you the case of Brady Anderson, without looking it up, I don't think he ever hit over 20 HR's except the year he hit 50, and he didn't put on even 30 lbs, probably closer to 10-15.

All that being said, I still believe that Barry Bonds is the HR king, and the greatest baseball player I have ever seen play, bar none. People older than I may have seen better, but in my lifetime, I have not.