Pitchers' stats are better because steroids are gone.

Has decrease in steroid use caused less hits?

  • Yes - All these no-hitters are because of less steroids.

  • No - Pitching is better because of some other reason.

  • It's football season, I don't give a crap about baseball!


Results are only viewable after voting.

edro

Lifer
Apr 5, 2002
24,326
68
91
I have been hearing this concept on sports radio lately.

Do you think there is any truth to it?

They say steroid use was very rampant and almost standard.
Now with all the bad press, everyone has stopped using.

They say bat speed is reduced without steroids, so hitting a ball is tougher.
They also say steroids increase vision.
So if you can see the ball better and can bring your bat around faster, you can hit the ball easier.
 
Last edited:

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
Steroids have almost nothing to do with getting on base and breaking up perfect games/no hitters. The two statements you referenced are complete speculation and I don't believe them in the slightest. If anything, I would say steroids would make those feats easier, because *gasp* the pitchers are on PEDs too, and they do more for a pitcher to prevent a single than for a hitter getting one.

None of your poll answers are adequate. The correct answer is "No - It is a function of statistical randomness".
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
There should be a correlation of reduced PED use to improved pitching performance. Have PEDs decreased? Most likely, especially with high profile players like Manny, Mike Cameron, Jay Gibbons, Romero, Palmeiro, and Edinson Volquez (pitched last night for Reds) getting caught and players don't want to risk losing 50/100 games worth of salary.

PEDs will increase reaction time of a swing on a pitch because strength increases bat speed. If bat speed is decreased overall in the league, there will be less balls hit or hit to where the batter wants to hit it. Hence ERA's should be better and homerun numbers should be lower, especially since slower bat speed = less acceleration. Force = mass x acceleration and mass X velocity = momentum. Weight/strength will increase bat speed through acceleration (change in velocity) of the bat which generates more force. Increased strength would also allow a batter to also increase the "mass" part of momentum i.e. a heavier bat. More momentum = ball travels farther. Anabolics will help bat speed and as a direct function of momentum the ball will travel farther.

Of course the above only references anabolic steroids and increased strength, which could be quantified by the HR rate since 2001 (Bond's historic year). Even with newer, shorter ballparks we are still seeing a decrease in homeruns. What this tells me (without looking at the direct data) is that anabolics are less prevalent. We don't need direct evidence, the numbers already tell a story.

We could also quantify the use of non-anabolics such as HGH/Winstrol (which prevent injuries and strengthen the ligaments) through a measure of how many injuries MLB has had since 2001. If the number has significantly increased dramatically then we could correlate the two. I'll see if I can dig this number up later.
 

darkxshade

Lifer
Mar 31, 2001
13,749
6
81
But pitchers were caught using Steroids too... so are they still using it? If not, shouldn't that even out?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
But pitchers were caught using Steroids too... so are they still using it? If not, shouldn't that even out?

We cannot positively correlate increased strength/weight to increased baseball velocity of a pitcher. For example, how does Lincecum at 5-10/170 throw just as hard/harder than Roy Halladay at 6-6/240? I think pitching has a lot more to do with overall flexibility/coordination vs raw strength. For example, a batter can be fooled by a pitch and have his weight shifted all out of wack but still muscle out a double with his upper body. For pitchers, possibly gaining leg strength to push off the mound could add a couple mph but you don't see pitchers messing with their upper body like hitters. Hitting a ball is a much simpler movement vs pitching and hitters have much more to gain with upper body strength + heavier weight.

While it may help pitchers gain a couple mph, that isn't going to have the same impact as adding reaction time + hitting a ball farther for hitters.

Romero and Volquez were the last 2 pitchers caught. Volquez used Clomid:
Clomifene is commonly used by male anabolic steroid users to bind the estrogen receptors in their bodies, thereby blocking the effects of estrogen, such as gynecomastia. It also restores the body's natural production of testosterone. It is commonly used as a "recovery drug" and taken toward the end of a steroid cycle.[citation needed] It is included on the World Anti-Doping Agency list of illegal doping agents in sport.[2] Some users report that taking Clomid increases the amount of fluid produced during ejaculation, which make it a fertility drug option for men as well.

Romero used andro from an OTC product sold at GNC, Grimsley HGH + Deca + Prohormones. Pretty much a mixed bag of andro/hgh/recovery drugs.
 
Last edited:

Kyle

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 1999
4,146
11
91
Eh, that might have something to do w/ it- but really I think we're just in a golden age for pitchers- there's some scary good talent out there right now that I doubt hitters on steroids would have much luck against either
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,908
4,486
136
I think steriods were more previlant in hitters than in pitchers. Not to say some didnt do it, but i dont think it had the same impact on the game. Now that steriods are used less i think the hitters are getting back to basics or "natural". So it makes the pitchers seem that much better now that the batters cant catch up to the fastballs as easily.

But at the same time i do think its just a freak year for pitchers and i dont think we'll see it repeated again anytime soon. The no-hitters were just off the charts this year.
 

oogabooga

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2003
7,806
3
81
Name hot young hitters. You'll have a list of players who will likely be regular all-stars.
Name hot young pitchers. You'll have a list of likely hall of fame candidates.

There is just a lot of really good pitching prospects out there, a lot of really really good pitchers establishing themselves, and some great pitchers showing their stuff. Steroids probably helped pitchers as much as it helped hitters. I don't have facts, but I'd assume something that could make you swing a bat faster and "See better" could help you throw a ball better. And of course, helping recovery time.

I'm sure steroid use going down had a small part to do with it, but it's not like steroid suddenly meant pitchers only needed 2 strikes to get the out. It alone isn't the explanation.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,892
31,410
146
No. This is idiotic.

There have been plenty of un-hittable pitchers during the home run/"steroids" era that were still plenty unhittable. There were a handful of hitters among the truly great ones that, likewise, were either going to be walked or knock a 2B+.

Nothing has changed. Stats are a great thing, until some idiot has no idea how to use them then starts making idiotic suggestions.


Steroids are a farce.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
There are several different steroids with slightly different effects on the body. A true regimen of steroid usage includes several different types as well as a recovery drug. Most often a big anabolic steroid is taken at first. This causes your muscle cells to suck in and retain water. This does several important things. One, it stretches the muscle cells. Two, since the cells are swollen, they are stronger for being pushed at their max. Three, with the added water in the cells the protein chains within the cells break down easier and faster. Four, the water helps prevent cell damage while working out.

It also has several bad side effects if used improperly. Too much water in cells for too long will cause decay and can over stretch cells to damage them. The anabolic steroids are typically highly toxic to the body and can cause major liver damage.

This is why most people on a steroid regimen go through cycles. They take an anabolic for a week or two and work out like mad, all the while drinking as much water and sweating it out as fast as possible. They also take in tons of protein as well. People during this period of the cycle have a "moon" face look to them as their faces get swollen as well from the added water retention.

The next part of the cycle is to switch to a steroid that helps build protein chains and allows the water to drain out. The now stretched muscle cells with the broken chains of protein start to deflate as water drains out when the anabolic steroid is no longer taken. To prevent saggy muscles and other problems associated with the stoppage of the anabolic, a more androgenic type of steroid is taken. Usually something that forces protein chains to rapidly form. If done right, the muscles cells that have recently been stretched and had their old protein chains broken are ready to have them rebuilt bigger and stronger. Lighter, shorter, but faster workouts are done here with tons of protein eaten around the clock. This cycle continues for 2 weeks, and then another 2 on an even more androgenic style steroid.

This typically completes a "6 week" cycle iirc. Some athletes will do a few more 6 week cycles to repeat the process a few times to make sure they got the most stretched out and longest protein chains their muscles can hold.

The problem is that no one's body is designed to hold onto that much protein in their cells. Without constant working out and some regular steroid usage, the body's natural chemical called myostatin will start to break down larger than normal protein chains in muscle cells.

Anyhow, one of the other side effects of steroids is that all steroids are basically testosterone. The body reacts differently to different type of testosterone, but one universal effect is this. Your body will stop producing any form of natural testosterone the moment the receptors for those hormones are maxed. In fact, the male body will start creating a chemical that will "aromatase" the extra testosterone floating around in the blood stream. What that basically means is that it will change testosterone into estrogen. The hormone receptors for testosterone also readily bond with estrogen as well. This is a big problem with steroid usage. The other universal effect is that when testosterone production stops, it doesn't start back up for several days, to a week, or longer sometimes. Since the body started converting extra testosterone to estrogen and doesn't automatically start production of testosterone, there is going to be way too much estrogen floating around the blood stream. This will completely undo everything an athlete tried to gain during a steroid cycle. Protein chains will break down, fast will grow, and testicles will shrink, and other problems occur.

This is why people then take Clomid. It was originally designed as a fertility drug for women. It basically binds to estrogen receptors males to stop them from using estrogen. The other effect of Clomid is it tells your body that you have zero hormones floating around in your system, either estrogen or testosterone. This forces your body to start production of it's main sexual hormone. For women it's estrogen, and for men it's testosterone. This is why it's a fertility drug. The extra estrogen for women helps them drop eggs and helps with other parts of the female body to get pregnant.

After all that, many athletes will take yet one more steroid called Winstrol. This one is really different that other steroids in that it doesn't cause the same problems as other steroids such as stopping production of testosterone. It is actually rated safe for kids and women and is one of the few approved steroids they can take.

The main affects of Winstrol are to tell your body to burn nearly all it's fast by hyping up your metabolism to high levels. Also it forces any remaining water in the muscle cells to drain out completely. Most body builders before the actual show take this. It is metabolized very fast in the body and thus is harder to catch from drug testing. It gives people a massively "ripped" look as well as increasing reaction times of muscles and ligaments by removing the excess water that might slow them down. It also has some other side affects that deal with increasing your brains connectivity performance. Which means you can think faster and react faster to an extent. Your perception of your surroundings go up big time.


Anyhow, steroid usage can have a major impact on a persons athletic performance, which is why people want to take them if they can get away with it. And yes, I do attribute the huge droppage of steroid usage as a big correlation to increased "pitching" stats as well as decreased hitting performance for baseball. There are other factors for sure, but this one is a big one in my opinion.
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
i don't care about baseball, but i thought it was funny that Halladay ran the bases wearing a jacket. :awe:
 

oogabooga

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2003
7,806
3
81
i don't care about baseball, but i thought it was funny that Halladay ran the bases wearing a jacket. :awe:

Well his mom was at the game and it was cold. He tried arguing "But mommy..." - it didn't work obviously
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Steroids are a farce.

Absolutely false. I obtained the Top 200 ISO (pure SLG% without the singles) numbers from years 1990 - 2010 and calculated the Mean (average) and Median (more accurate because it removes outliers).

The results? We are currently back at 1995-1996 levels of power. Here are the numbers:

Mean ISO of Top 200:
1990: 0.142990654
1991: 0.143686916
1992: 0.135411215
1993: 0.156771028
1994: 0.1595 (excluded b/c of strike, averaged 1993+5 to smooth out linegraph)
1995: 0.162018692
1996: 0.181546729
1997: 0.173929907
1998: 0.182224299
1999: 0.193266355
2000: 0.198196262
2001: 0.188925234
2002: 0.183261682
2003: 0.18628972
2004: 0.190443925
2005: 0.180906542
2006: 0.190724299
2007: 0.182752336
2008: 0.180803738
2009: 0.181752336
2010: 0.17182243

Median ISO of Top 200 (not as susceptible to outliers like Bonds/McGwire):
1990: 0.135
1991: 0.1355
1992: 0.1255
1993: 0.1505
1994: 0.154 (excluded b/c of strike, averaged 1993+5 to smooth out linegraph)
1995: 0.1575
1996: 0.172
1997: 0.1685
1998: 0.1735
1999: 0.1845
2000: 0.188
2001: 0.1785
2002: 0.1755
2003: 0.1775
2004: 0.1865
2005: 0.171
2006: 0.1845
2007: 0.178
2008: 0.1755
2009: 0.1755
2010: 0.167

Around 1998-2004 (and possibly up to 2006) was clearly the Steroid Era. Post 2006 numbers have been trending downward and the numbers support a correlation to a tougher PED policy.

For those who claim the numbers mean nothing: How is it that from 1990-1997 (not including strike year due to limited data) the average Median ISO was .149 vs .1799 from 1998-2006? A 30 point swing is.not.normal. Median even removes the worst abusers like Bonds/McGwire. There is no denying that there was a significant increase in power starting in 1998 to around 2006. It is most likely a combination of PEDs + smaller ballparks. I'm not a believer in "jackrabbit ball" theory until someone takes a live game ball from today vs around 2000 and scientifically analyzes them.
 
Last edited:

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
Crap, I want to chase my answer to the 'Who gives a shit about baseball' category.

Baseball blows.
 

meltdown75

Lifer
Nov 17, 2004
37,548
7
81
actually i want to amend my post.

i don't care about *regular season* baseball. unless i'm sitting at Comerica Park enjoying a cold one :awe:

playoffs are FTW though, definitely
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Anyhow, steroid usage can have a major impact on a persons athletic performance, which is why people want to take them if they can get away with it. And yes, I do attribute the huge droppage of steroid usage as a big correlation to increased "pitching" stats as well as decreased hitting performance for baseball. There are other factors for sure, but this one is a big one in my opinion.

There are two bigger factors than steroids in the "year of the pitcher"

First and foremost, teams recognize the value of defense. Teams are fielding younger, more athletic players that can play the field better. They save runs from being scored, save line drives from falling for hits, and turn double plays. This alone is a tremendous advantage to a pitcher. After all, he is really only a small part of a perfect game or a no-hitter or even of a strong outing. The guys behind him have to make plays and they are making them with more regularity than ever before.

Second, we have a glut of strong, young arms. Baseball talent seems to come in waves. A four - five years ago it was centerfielders. Baseball had more good young outfielders than they knew what to do with. Then it was catchers. Now it is pitchers.

I think that is partly cyclical, but I also believe that teams are doing a much better job preparing these guys for the major leagues.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Isolated Power = ISO = (2B+3B*2+HR*3)/AB

edit: Caps filter is ridiculously annoying.

Yep, ISO is better than Slugging percentage because it removes singles. For example, if a power hitter starts hitting more singles instead of 2B/3B/HR then it wouldn't be reflected in Slugging percentage, hence ISO is a better indicator of true power because it removes this factor. Some guys even take out the triples because they think it's more of a function of speed, but there are so few of them that IMO they don't really influence the outcome... and then there is the fact that even slow hitters can hit legitimate triples due to strange caroms/hops of the ball.

We will need a couple more years worth of data to see if offensive numbers continue to decline but all four years since 2006 have been lower or the same as the year before it. With the introduction of HGH Minor League testing this year, MLB has shown it's getting more serious about testing. HGH is known as "the foundation" because it strengthens/repairs ligaments. Like HumbliePie said, baseball players will cycle anabolics and just maintain the strength. Many players will do this in the winter when they aren't tested and just keep the strength once the season starts... and the substance is already out of their system. This is especially prevalent in the minor leagues where guys are trying to make it big, so HGH is most likely used more in the minors. From a 2003 SI article:

The sources acknowledged that the number of users is probably significantly higher than that because baseball does not test in the off-season, when many players follow the traditional steroid training regimen: They shoot up in November, December and January, then get off steroids to start a four-week flexibility program before spring training. Two minor leaguers told SI that they attempt to cheat the tests by gulping water and diuretics when a test administrator arrives to take urine samples.

Virtually all of the 20 or so minor leaguers interviewed by SI described the use of steroids and other drugs (including amphetamines and marijuana) as rampant in the minors. They said that testing is spotty. A Class A player in the Kansas City Royals system says he was not tested at all last season. One former pitcher in the Detroit system even says, "Two coaches approached me and suggested I do steroids." Two players say they easily obtained steroids from contacts at their local gyms. "When you were in college, everybody knew someone who could get them pot," says one minor leaguer. "In baseball everyone knows someone who can get them steroids."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/flashbacks/2002/year_in_review/steroids/

I will do a homerun median graph later just for kicks, and maybe look at the 20 year numbers for ERA.
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
we went from 2 pitchers having an ERA under 3 a couple years ago to a whole host of them now. maybe some of that is due to the current pitchers being just better than previous pitchers. but i doubt that's all of it.