Steroids and Baseball: Revisited

[PilotMan]

This season there has never been more stringent steroid testing in MLB. Nor, has there been more scrutiny placed on the players. Just a couple of observations and I think that time will tell what was going on in MLB in the late 80's and throught the 90's.

None of this is earthshattering, and is really just a surface observation. Maybe someone else has better stats than these.

1) The Rockies finally had thier first 1-0 baseball game at Coors.
2) 47 pitchers in MLB have ERA's below 4.00. 10 have ERA's below 3.00
and
3) Noone has over 30 HR's at the break, and 13 guys have more than 20.

It just seems to me that we are in the process of seeing the game fundamentally change again. These numbers remind me of stats from the 70's and early 80's, back when I fell in love with baseball. Maybe in my head that is what I am hoping for.

So are we seeing the result from the loss of performance enhancers among ballplayers? Is this proof that baseball was indeed doped? Do you like it better now, or then. I like it better now, and I hope it stays that way.

[Draft Dodger]

well, I'm sure people will bring up sample size, but yeah, I think you're seeing some, um, enhanced numbers come back down to reality (yes, Steve Finley, this means YOU).

but, as much as I like seeing more realistic numbers, steroids aren't going to go away - the steroid makers will just find new ways to beat the system. the worst part about this dropoff in stats is probably just going affirm that steroids DO work, and you'll get more young players wanting to use them. in a way, it's like this collapse is an endorsement for them.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

3) Noone has over 30 HR's at the break

True, but Eric Milton has exactly 30 (given up, that is).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

True, but Eric Milton has exactly 30 (given up, that is).

At least he's consistent

SI

[Easy Mac]

I don't remember when he wrote it, but I believe a Jayson Stark article came out in like May or June (when he was still free to read), that examined home runs. The home runs were down exactly the amount that Bonds, Sosa, Thome... (the big sluggers the last few years) had hit at that point last year. They were all injured/underperforming at the time. While that may have been directly related to steroids (though everyone I've heard says no way Thome was a roider, even though he was bigger than them all), I wonder if those stats still hold up, or if its just easier to sweep it all up as "steroids, steroids, steroids." Its not like we're looking at the disappearance of the 50 homer season, which was done like once in the 80's (or was Mitchell's 47 the most of the 80's?). Jones and Lee are still on pace for 50, and I'm pretty sure homers start flying out more in the later summer months (hotter weather and tired pitchers, Sept. callups...).

I'd wait until the end of the season to make a complete call, although I think the game in general is different than it was in the 80's (guys naturally have become bigger, so naturally there's more home runs than in the past, plus expansion). I think the 1-0 game at Coors has nothing to do with it, except for inept hitting on both sides. And pitching is often quite cyclical. I mean, in like 2 years in the 80's we had Clemens and Gooden come on the scene. Now we have Dontrelle and Buerhle bursting through, which may or may not be related to steroids. I don't know where I can bring up mid-season historical stats online, but I'd venture to say the ERA's will come close to normalizing when the season closes 9hell, the Rangers are hitting home runs that should come close to breaking the team record).

edit: I forgot the steroid year of 87 with McGwire and The Hawk hitting 49 each... damn my being 5 at the time... ahh, but that was the greatest RBI Baseball ever!

[Chubby]

i don't think the 50 homer season will go away with the little league parks the games are played in nowadays.

[sterlingice]

I'm glad you brought that up, Easy Mac, because I remembered the article and thought it addressed this really well but couldn't think of who it was by:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...=2074920&num=0

SI

[Easy Mac]

So has he officially gone inside on ESPN now?

[sterlingice]

I think I remember them saying he was going to, but I'm not sure as to when.

SI

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Lets see what the numbers are at the end of the season and this time next year.

[JeeberD]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Its not like we're looking at the disappearance of the 50 homer season, which was done like once in the 80's (or was Mitchell's 47 the most of the 80's?).

I believe that George Foster was the last person to hit 50 before Big Cecil did it in 1990. Foster hit his 52 in 1977...

[JeeberD]

Dola-

But I do believe a couple of folks hit 49 in the eighties. McGwire and Barfield, maybe?

Edit: Make that a negative on Barfield. Only 40 for him...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JeeberD

Dola-

But I do believe a couple of folks hit 49 in the eighties. McGwire and Barfield, maybe?

Edit: Make that a negative on Barfield. Only 40 for him...

Dawson, also 49 in 1987.

SI

[Ksyrup]

Schmidt hit 48 in 1980, George Bell and Kevin Mitchell had 47 each one year, Canseco had a 40+ HR season at least once...Darrell Evans hit 40 one year I remember, but other than that, there couldn't have been more than 3 or 4 more for all of the 80s.

[Maple Leafs]

I can't wait until a .300/30/100 season is considered impressive again.

[Klinglerware]

The weakness of Stark's argument is, unbelievably, in the article itself: the statistic he sites (HR/G) does not support his assertion that the HR rate has gone down drastically because of the testing program. From the April-May HR rate tables he includes:

2001 2.2
2002 2.0
2003 2.1
2004 2.2
2005 2.0

That's not a very big change--looks like normal variation to me... It is interesting that he buries the 2005 numbers at the end, like people weren't going to find it. The 1990 rates were much higher, so there actually has been a downward trend since 2000: possibly attributable to the strike zone, the emphasis on power pitching, and the construction of a couple of pitcher-friendly ballparks...

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I can't wait until a .300/30/100 season is considered impressive again.

Well, you'll have to wati a while with guys like Manny, Arod and Tejada more or less in their prime. Not to mention younger players like Cabrera, A Ramirez and Pujols. I think baseball players are just different now, more well-rounded than they were in the 80's. I think the misconception now is that small ball is winning when its not. The White Sox are a power team that can't hit. They just have good pitching and a decent leadoff guy. The Cards are a power team with decent pitching. No one can figure out how the Nationals are in first. The Red Sox are a power team. The O's are a power team, San Diego has good pitching. The Angels have Vlad (and are in a weak division). I think we just need to understand that steroids were just one of a number of factors that changed the way the game was played (albeit back to the style more in line with the late 20's early thirties) from when we were younger, and that these shifts are generally noted through baseball history. There's always decade strings of good hitting or good pitching. I think the steroid era peaked a good 3-4 years ago, and that the new testing really isn't doing much anyway other than making people feel good.