Bonds. Homerun king.

[Illinest]

I most certainly do not believe that 15 pounds of muscle equals 24 homeruns.

And Brady Anderson is a weird case, but I think it's also a case of confirmation bias. You look for weird results that fit the pattern you're expecting to see and you say 'look! proof!'
And I'm not saying it's impossible mind you, but if he got that result through roids then the roids seem awful selective. Is that the only season that he allegedly did it? It would almost have to be wouldn't it? Because if he used roids in another season then I could likewise use that season to prove that roids DON'T increase homerun totals. Put another way...
"Anderson was on roids in 97 but he only hit 18 homeruns therefore the roids didn't work."

 

[26 elroy face]

Try and tell that to Jim Palmer. Are you saying that adding 10 to 15 lbs of upper body muscle won't increase swing speed.

 

[thecrow124]

I most certainly do not believe that 15 pounds of muscle equals 24 homeruns.

And Brady Anderson is a weird case, but I think it's also a case of confirmation bias. You look for weird results that fit the pattern you're expecting to see and you say 'look! proof!'
And I'm not saying it's impossible mind you, but if he got that result through roids then the roids seem awful selective. Is that the only season that he allegedly did it? It would almost have to be wouldn't it? Because if he used roids in another season then I could likewise use that season to prove that roids DON'T increase homerun totals. Put another way...
"Anderson was on roids in 97 but he only hit 18 homeruns therefore the roids didn't work."

What if the 15 lbs of muscle is all in the white muscle fibers? Those are the muscle fibers that are considered fast twitch muscle fibers. By increasing the number or size of those fibers, you could add a significant amount of spped to a swing, and to the body in general. This could be an explanatiopn for why in the entire history of baseball there have been a total of 4 players go 40/40. All three are proven to have taken steroids, however no player, even those more talented than the three mentioned were capable of this feat?

Mind you that I am NOT in any way saying players hit more HR's solely because of steroids, but trying to show you that the only 2 people on the face of the earth that believe that steroids don't improve performance seem to be the author of the article you posted and yourself. They are called performance enhancers for a reason. Look at it like this, Player A 27 yrs old is hitting .300 with 25 HR and plays CF and takes steroids, Player B 27 yrs old is hitting .300 with 25 HR's and plays CF and does not take steroids. After 120 games player A's muscles still work and recover like they did on opening day while player B's muscles are tired and worn down and he needs to rest. Does player A have an advantage or not? I would say definitively YES. Does it mean that they won't end up with the exact same statistics, no it doesn't, but if Player A playes 162 games total and player B plays 155 games total, then there is a measurable difference between the 2 that can be attributed to only 1 factor.

 

[Illinest]

What if the 15 lbs of muscle is all in the white muscle fibers? Those are the muscle fibers that are considered fast twitch muscle fibers. By increasing the number or size of those fibers, you could add a significant amount of spped to a swing, and to the body in general. This could be an explanatiopn for why in the entire history of baseball there have been a total of 4 players go 40/40. All three are proven to have taken steroids, however no player, even those more talented than the three mentioned were capable of this feat?

Mind you that I am NOT in any way saying players hit more HR's solely because of steroids, but trying to show you that the only 2 people on the face of the earth that believe that steroids don't improve performance seem to be the author of the article you posted and yourself. They are called performance enhancers for a reason. Look at it like this, Player A 27 yrs old is hitting .300 with 25 HR and plays CF and takes steroids, Player B 27 yrs old is hitting .300 with 25 HR's and plays CF and does not take steroids. After 120 games player A's muscles still work and recover like they did on opening day while player B's muscles are tired and worn down and he needs to rest. Does player A have an advantage or not? I would say definitively YES. Does it mean that they won't end up with the exact same statistics, no it doesn't, but if Player A playes 162 games total and player B plays 155 games total, then there is a measurable difference between the 2 that can be attributed to only 1 factor.

The 40/40 thing is pretty weak imho. First because Bonds seems to have done it before he started using steroids. Bonds' dad missed it by one homerun in 1973. Vlad Guerrero likewise.
If you go down the list of 30/30 guys you'll see lots that missed it by just a few of either figure. If you contend that steroids might take a 38/38 guy up to 41/41 then I'd be willing to accept that.
Your point about health is good, but there've been plenty of healthy seasons in 100+ years of baseball and plenty of unhealthy seasons. If steroids makes it possible for more stars to remain healthy for 162 games then I call that a good thing, not a bad thing. To each his own? It's not a major issue in my mind. Roger Maris played 161 games in his big year.

 

[Illinest]

I do take issue with two things you posted.
1. allegedly more talented? the ball is better, nutrition is better, workouts are better, I think it's perfectly reasonable to think that a player like Soriano, whether he's using steroids or not, is a candidate to have a better season than any of the all-time greats.
Lemme put this another way. If Babe Ruth played baseball today I think he'd either have to improve his conditioning significantly or else max out as a Prince Fielder type of player. Fielder is a pretty good player but he's not Babe Ruth. (that was a completely out-of-my-ass guess based solely on the fact that there aren't a bunch of fat guys raping the league right now, therefore safe to assume that fat Babe Ruth wouldn't be able to r*pe the league in the present day either.)

2. The first sentence of your second paragraph is a mischaracterization of the issues on more than one level. I feel I've been consistent in my view that the steroid effect is grossly exaggerated, but I have not denied all effects as you insinuate here. I'm also far from the only other person who thinks that the effects attributed to steroids are out of touch with any reasonable expectation for performance increase. Running in a straight line is one thing. Hitting a homerun is an act that is dependent on a significantly greater number of factors coming together on the other hand.