As I’ve said before I think a lot of the benefit from Steroids is a placebo effect. But I’d venture to guess that it benefits pitchers more than hitters. Steroids won’t make you stronger, they will increase your ability to maintain power over time. Specifically throughout a bat a hitter on steroids would lose less power with each swing than a clean one. Just like a pitcher would maintain velocity longer within an inning on steroids than clean.

This is just from an elementary understanding of how our bodies work. If someone really had the impetus to check this out, my guess is that there would be rise in HRs late in ABs during the steroid era. I’m not saying that steroids have no effect but I don’t think the effect is nearly as dramatic as most seem to think.

Steroids won’t make you stronger…

I take a back seat to no one in steroid skepticism, but these drugs clearly do make you stronger.  All by themselves, even if you don’t work your butt off in the weight room.  Unlike the fantastic claims about the magical properties of hGH, tis is a well-documented medical fact, supported by numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Having said that, I agree with you that the steroid effect is probably nowhere near what many people think.  I also agree with SG that the number of players who were “clean” between the late ‘80s and the early ‘OOs is probably extremely small.

Yeah, I worded that badly I started mixing up strength and power and using them as interchangeable terms. What that should have read is steroids won’t make you more powerful.

MC, Re: Wilkerson, previous thread—

He hits lefties better than righties, 819 OPS for his career.

Re: XBH/strikeout records. previous thread:

I wonder why the top 20 are all pre-WWII.  Is it that “not striking out” is a discipline no longer taught/emphasized?  Or were baseball players then simply gods who walked the earth in human form?

Is it that “not striking out” is a discipline no longer taught/emphasized?  Or were baseball players then simply gods who walked the earth in human form?

I think contact was more highly valued back then, since gloves were smaller and balls in play were more likely to be hits.  I also don’t think you had a lot of variety in pitches.  When did people start throwing curves and changeups? I read a book about the psychology of baseball and they had a study in there which showed that adjusting for the speed of an incoming pitch seemed to have the biggest impact on a hitter.  The more variety in speeds of a potential pitch and the worse the hitter did.

i was looking at joe d’s career last night…more homers than strikeouts in 7 seasons….unheard of even if there were only fastballs being thrown.

ESPN is claiming that the twins are looking for final offers on santana…somebody needs to put a muzzle on hal before he does something we will all regret.

At this point, I am hoping he stays put. I think the twins can contend with cleveland and detroit with another cy young year from johan.

Interesting that the steroid discussion should pop up amidst the greatest Yankee seasons posts.  I tend toward not believing that steroids have no effect (Bonds’ 73 HR is well over 5 standard deviations from the mean) but I can’t get too caught up in the debate, either. 

Do readers cast a jaundiced eye on the recent seasons that have been popping up on SG’s lists?  It seems that what one must do (to remain sane) is treat the steroid era like any other (dead ball, higher pitching mound, etc.) and just keep looking at effectiveness relative to league.  One might say that this penalizes those who refused to cheat/endanger their health, but another way of looking at it is that we wind up measuring not baseball skill in all its components (including effort, health, etc.) but rather contributions toward wins, regardless of how they came about—two related but distinct phenomena.

Mind you, I think this would be an unethical way of looking at weighter issues in the world.  (I.e., the Republicans successfully suppressed the African-American vote in Ohio, therefore they are more strategic and effective, therefore they deserved to win the election and therefore I’m not going to worry about what went into it—just to use a crazy hypothetical as an example.)

I don’t agree that steroids only help increase power.  Power is a direct result of bat-speed.  A stronger player is likely to have an increased bad-speed. 

The quicker you can bring the bat through the hitting zone, the longer you can wait to determine if a pitch is a strike or not. It logically follows that being able to wait another fraction of a second will result in better contact.

Additionally, a player could choose to use their added strength to swing a heavier bat with a resulting larger sweet-spot.

Pitchers were throwing changeups and some type of curveball back then.  A lot of them were also doctoring the ball—spitters, mudballs, literally “cut” fastballs.

Also re: speed of pitch, there is anecdotal evidence that pitchers didn’t throw as hard as they could all the time—they tried to save their arm strength for when they needed extra on a pitch, to show the batter something he hadn’t seen.  Which is one reason complete games were so much more common.

On the steroids issue, I also don’t see how you separate juicing from the increased emphasis on weight raining in the past 20 years.  I know they sort of go hand in hand, but if you buy that more muscles=better hitter, some benefit would accrue just from pumping iron alone.

Trying to be clear—if Baseball Benefit Z=Steroids X + Training Y, Z-X is still >0.

Is it that “not striking out” is a discipline no longer taught/emphasized?  Or were baseball players then simply gods who walked the earth in human form?

Clearly both.

When did people start throwing curves and changeups?

Well, this guy http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cummica01.shtml is generally credited with inventing the curveball.  Christy Matthweson’s famous “fade-away” was a screwball.  The changeup probably has been around at least as long.

there is anecdotal evidence that pitchers didn’t throw as hard as they could all the time—they tried to save their arm strength for when they needed extra on a pitch, to show the batter something he hadn’t seen.

I don’t think too many pitchers throw as hard as they can all the time today, either.  At least not starters.  But depending on how far back you’re talking about, there’s definitely some truth to what you’re saying.  There are photos of Matthewson throwing pretty much flat-footed in games.  Depending on the era, there might have been anywhere from two to five guys in most lineups who just couldn’t hurt you, so why not let ‘em put it in play?  Nowadays, you have to actually pitch to all 8 or 9 guys.

I don’t agree that steroids only help increase power.  Power is a direct result of bat-speed.  A stronger player is likely to have an increased bad-speed.

No, A more powerful player is likely to have an increased bat speed. A stronger player would be able to swing a heavier bat more times.

You are mixing up strength and power which are entirely different things. Power is the concern in baseball and is almost entirely determined by genetics and training. You are born with a specific ratio of type 1 and type 2 muscle fibers, you cant change that, you can change the size of the fibers by training them. Type one are slow twitch which have a greater impact on strength which really doesn’t effect baseball all that much for example, strength is a concern for distance runners. Type 2 muscles, are the fast twitch muscles which primarily impact power, which mostly the type of activity in baseball, sprinters need power.

I’m not saying steroids have no effect. What they can do is add muscle mass which doesn’t make you more powerful. Ever look at Asafa Powell? He was on campus several days ago and he’s not a huge guy, but is the fastest man in the world. Ever. Anyways, what the added muscle mass does is increase the stores of immediate energy, and thus allows the batter to maintain greater power over the extent of the at bat as there is a lesser chance of having to use non-immediate energy systems. The same follows for pitchers throughout an innings. Between at bats and innings the players have plenty of time to replenish their energy stores.

I think.

Type one are slow twitch which have a greater impact on strength which really doesn’t effect baseball all that much

Now, I’m certainly not a doctor, and I haven’t stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in a while, but I think strength *does* matter for hitting a baseball.  Simply, once the ball makes contact with the bat, the amount of strength you have helps you to keep the bat-speed through the swing.

Basically (and I really haven’t done much physics since my junior year in HS either), it is an elastic collision, and both the ball AND the bat want to go in the other direction.  Strength helps to keep the bat driving through the ball, so that the entire force of the swing is applied to the ball.  Or something like that.

Anyway, my point is that stronger players are likely to hit the ball harder.  Like many, I have no idea how much harder, or what that does to their stats, or how much the fact that many pitchers are juicing as well counteracts that.  Maybe someday we’ll be able to figure it out, though by that time even if we do it may not matter.

Ever look at Asafa Powell? He was on campus several days ago and he’s not a huge guy, but is the fastest man in the world. Ever.

Did you get a good look at his legs?  True, he’s not huge.  But he’s obviously pretty freakin’ strong.

Between at bats and innings the players have plenty of time to replenish their energy stores.

At the pace of the modern game, the players have plenty of time to replenish their energy stores during an at-bat.  Seriously, I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to argue here.  Increased strength, especially in the torso and legs, can definitely contribute to increased bat speed, which will increase power.  I personally think that the idea of being able to wait on the pitch longer is rather over-blown.  It only takes a half a second for a 90 mph fastball to hit the catcher’s mitt.  Batters have to start their swings within about two tenths of a second of release.  Being able to wait an extra hundredth of a second can’t be that big an advantage compared to the benefit of being able to get the bat head to the ball faster once you do decide to swing.

You may have a point, but I’d venture to say that the physics of the human body and hitting a baseball is a lot more complicated than inelastic or elastic collisions. Theres a lot of momentum on both sides of the equation and a hell of a lot more weight on the batter’s side, also angular acceleration and momentum to complicate things.

But simply there really isn’t enough time in a swing for strength to make much of an impact. Think of power as force applied in an instant and strength as force applied over time. Its not nearly as simple as that. But I am certain that baseball is primarily a power and skill sport with little use for strength.

OK, I’m not talking about baseball power I’m talking about muscular power, which is not the same as strength. Asafa Powell is most certainly ridiculously powerful and probably pretty strong as power training does have an effect on strength.

Nike was doing an Olympics shoot on the track on my campus, Bernard Legat was there the day before. My friends met him and got their picture taken with him. Also, to my chagrin I did not immediately recognize him, I thought he was a jumper because he didn’t look all that big like a lot of sprinters do.

Powell that is.

Some placebo on Bonds. Head twice the size, slugging percentage off the charts, etc.

It isn’t just steroids, it is steroids and HGh in combo, and whatever else is being used in a witches brew.

The more you use the more you benefit, short term. Especially if you already are at a high level of performance.

But simply there really isn’t enough time in a swing for strength to make much of an impact. Think of power as force applied in an instant and strength as force applied over time. Its not nearly as simple as that. But I am certain that baseball is primarily a power and skill sport with little use for strength.

OK, now I have to say that I think you’re wrong here.  Strength has a definite and obvious effect on how hard you can swing a bat, and therefore on how much force will be applied in the instant of contact.  F = M*A.  The acceleration of the mass will be greater when the person doing the accelerating can apply more strength to the task.

Of course, people who aren’t very strong to begin with do not play competitive sports at the highest levels.  The real question with respect to performance enhancement is how much benefit someone already performing a highly specialized task at a very high level will realize from an incremental increase in strength.

I think the mixup here is between batspeed and torque.  Clay’s point is that the actual time of impact is very short, so almost all the energy comes from the batspeed (1/2 mv^2).  If the impact time was longer, the torque a player would be able to apply during contact would be more important, but as it is, getting the batspeed up is the best way to hit the ball harder.  Now, if you’re able to use a substance that allows you to swing a heavier bat faster than otherwise, that substance is going to help you improve your “baseball power”.

Bill Nye has a nice breakdown of the physics of bats:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Features/Columns/?article=BNBrokenBats

The section on “Bats aren’t what they used to be” has an explanation.

USA Today reporting Johan Santana to the Mets for Gomez, Humber, Mulvey and Guerra.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-01-29-twins-mets-santana_N.htm

I feel supremely unqualified to talk on steroids, but isn’t one of the major benefits muscle recovery? Therefore fatigue becomes less of a factor, which would be a big advantage over a 162 game season.

As far as Santana goes, I’m extremely happy he’s out of the AL and, in particular, not a new member of the Red Sox. But Bill Smith overplayed his hand. We’ll never know for a fact if he could have had Phil Hughes and Melky + 2 prospects, but every indication from the Winter Meetings seemed to verify that he could have. And this current package, ugh…I’m not even sure who the centerpiece of the deal is. Carlos Gomez? Guerra?

It is entirely possible that the Twins wanted a higher price from the Red Sox / Yankees than the Met. and that talent judgement isn’t exactly a exact science. they may view the Mets package differently than us. and their track record there is pretty stellar.

I for one think that IPK + Cabrera + Horne + Tabata is very comparable to the Mets package but it really depends on how they see it. It’s obviously not a decisivly better one to keep him in the AL .