1) A correlation between steroid use and better performance. (Please.)

I've yet to see anything that convinces me that there is sufficient evidence for this to be taken for granted. In fact, most of the arguments that I've heard regarding this crucial point are similar to Reilly's.

"This is a Rick Reilly column, short and predictably shallow..."

Just like Reilly himself!

"...but it’s interesting..."

OK, maybe not.

I've yet to see anything that convinces me that there is sufficient evidence for this to be taken for granted.

If there's no correlation between steroid use and better performance, someone had better tell all the players, so that the players can stop using steroids.

I think some folks have told La Russa that his stupid note cards don't lead to better performance, but that hasn't stopped him.

4) Proof that they themselves didn't partake in steroids

I've yet to see anything that convinces me that there is sufficient evidence for this to be taken for granted.

There was a chapter in BPro's book Baseball Between the Numbers that found a small but statistically significant difference in the performance of players before and after failing drug tests. There's also, of course, ample evidence that steroids improve specific types of athletic performance - strength, speed. In a legal case, it would boil down to the standard of evidence.

I'm not a lawyer (but I sat on a civil jury once - and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express twice this summer!), but in civil proceedings I was under the impression that the standard is simply "preponderance of the evidence" which I understood to mean basically "more likely than not". I would think that you could convince a jury that it's more likely than not that steroids improve baseball performance.

"There was a chapter in BPro's book Baseball Between the Numbers that found a small but statistically significant difference in the performance of players before and after failing drug tests."

Which could be evidence that going off of steroids decreases performance... or that being rituallty shamed in public decreases performance.

Which could be evidence that going off of steroids decreases performance... or that being rituallty shamed in public decreases performance.

You really think it's MORE likely that steroids have no effect and this study simply found something else than that steroids improve players' baseball abilities? As I said, it comes down to the standard of evidence. And, while as I said, I'm not a lawyer, I suspect the legal case of these "clean" minor leaguers is pretty weak even if you accept that steroids actually enhance performance.

I'll make sure and forward this to Fernando Seguignol's lawyers

"You really think it's MORE likely that steroids have no effect and this study simply found something else than that steroids improve players' baseball abilities?"

I think that it would be better to remove as many other potential factors as possible before drawing conclusions about the existence/magnitude of a steroid boost for baseball activities. Surely you agree?

4) Proof that they themselves didn't partake in steroids

Bingo. And I don't see any way they could ever prove this.

I think that it would be better to remove as many other potential factors as possible before drawing conclusions about the existence/magnitude of a steroid boost for baseball activities. Surely you agree?

Of course. I am very hesitant to go throwing around specific numbers about how many home runs Mark McGwire or Barry Bonds or Manny Alexander would have hit sans steroids, but I'm reasonably comfortable that the correct answer in all three cases is greater than zero (although I admit that I had to double check on BB-Ref to be sure that Manny Alexander actually hit a home run in his major-league career (he hit 15 - at least 10 of which were surely steroid-tainted)). And I suspect that this is where any minor-leaguer lawsuits would fall apart: when the time would come for a SPECIFIC allegation that, absent steroids, the plaintiff was demonstrably better than a specific steroid-using fringe major-leaguer.

No one talks about the poor 22 years olds in AA who never got the chance to graduate to AAA because guys like Mitch Jones and that other guy were playing thousands of games in AAA and blocking their path. It's time to give up the dream dude.

I especially like the argument that Giambi and Sheff made millions of dollars. Therefore, if Jones had come up, he's like to think that he would have made millions of dollars.

There was a chapter in BPro's book Baseball Between the Numbers that found a small but statistically significant difference in the performance of players before and after failing drug tests.


I haven't read that yet. That's interesting, but from the sounds of it, hardly conclusive.

There's also, of course, ample evidence that steroids improve specific types of athletic performance - strength, speed.

Yes, I acknowledge that. But isn't there real evidence that steroid use has side effects that might be detrimental to a baseball player?

I realize I'm being obtuse here; I don't truly believe that steroids have never been beneficial to baseball players. I'm sure they have.

But it seems to me that entire debate/discussion was totally skipped and everyone just started saying "duh, of course steroids can make PLAYER X do Y". I don't presume to know how much steroids effected any one individual or baseball players as a whole. But I strongly suspect that the impact has been hugely overblown.

Reilly left SI. Short and predictably shallow is a better fit at ESPN.

"This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story!"

But isn't there real evidence that steroid use has side effects that might be detrimental to a baseball player?

Possibly. Chris Dial, for one, has argued extensively on this site that increased muscle mass can reduce flexibility which would offset the gains from increased strength. The argument is perfectly reasonable on a theoretical level, but essentially it boils down to, "If people don't know what they're doing or train improperly, they may not get the (full) benefits of steroids." That's possible, and may even be relevant to the subject of minor-leaguers being robbed of jobs by juicing minor-leaguers if we think that minor-leaguers are less likely to train/use steroids "properly". But I would still think that the most likely guess is that, on average, steroids do enhance the performance for most baseball players who use(d) them.

As far as whether the impact has been overblown, that's almost certainly true at the extreme. I think the real problem is that it's not a simple linear - player X hit 583 home runs, exactly 103 of which would not have been home runs had he not used steroids. One of the benefits of steroids is to speed up healing - in fact, my guess is that this is the main benefit of steroids on pitchers. So it's not simply a matter of counting home runs that only cleared the fence by 25 or less feet, but also trying to guess how many fewer (or more - steroids can also contribute to some other kinds of injuries) games the player would have played. And, of course, baseball is a player-v-player sport, so a player's statistics are affected not only by his own use but by the steroid use of his opponents.

Finally, of course the big problem with trying to quantify the impact of steroids on MLB performance is the problem alluded to in comments 5 and 11 above. You need to have a control group of NON-steroid users in order to calculate the impact of steroid use. And given what we know about MLB in the late 1990s/early 2000s, this is simply impossible to find.

There was a chapter in BPro's book Baseball Between the Numbers that found a small but statistically significant difference in the performance of players before and after failing drug tests.

I haven't read that yet. That's interesting, but from the sounds of it, hardly conclusive.

The problem -- I haven't read it either -- is that "Statistically significant" is not the same as practically significant. For instance, if you've got the right data, you may be able to conclude to a reasonable degree of mathematical certainty that steroids add 1 HR/season to a player's totals. Hey, a HR is a HR -- but it's not the difference between Mitch Jones being called up or not.

No one talks about the poor 22 years olds in AA who never got the chance to graduate to AAA because guys like Mitch Jones and that other guy were playing thousands of games in AAA and blocking their path. It's time to give up the dream dude.

Well that is a ridiculous little comment.
Jones is still a good AAA player, one who most AAA squads could use to fill out there team. What is wrong with him still playing?
But he wasn't a prospect, never was, so anyone he was "blocking" wasn't going to make it in pro ball anyway.

Well that is a ridiculous little comment.
Jones is still a good AAA player, one who most AAA squads could use to fill out there team. What is wrong with him still playing?
But he wasn't a prospect, never was, so anyone he was "blocking" wasn't going to make it in pro ball anyway.

Why is it ridiculous? By taking up that spot, he blocked someone else from taking it. That person was forced to stay in a lower league, and got less recognition, salary, and opportunity. The difference isn't trivial either ($1500 min in AA to $2150 min in AAA), and there's a lot more room to increase that salary after repeated go-arounds - guys like Ken Huckaby have made decent livings for themselves by continuing to play the high minors as non-prospects.

It's also a hell of a lot harder for that career minor leaguer to get that brief cup of coffee if he's down in AA, or A, or whatever, whereas we've seen tons of otherwise useless players get on to a major league roster for a day or two just because they were in AAA and healthy and readily available. For these guys, that single day is an extremely important thing, as it ensures them a full medical pension.

The problem -- I haven't read it either -- is that "Statistically significant" is not the same as practically significant. For instance, if you've got the right data, you may be able to conclude to a reasonable degree of mathematical certainty that steroids add 1 HR/season to a player's totals. Hey, a HR is a HR -- but it's not the difference between Mitch Jones being called up or not.

Wasn't there also a study presented at the last SABR conference which indicated that, among those suspected of using PEDs, there was an average of a 12% increase in performance (qualified in, I think, runs created, but I could be wrong) after the players were alleged to have started using PEDs, and controlled for age. 12% (or 7% excluding Bonds) is "practically significant" - a 7% increase is the difference in many cases between AAA and MLB bench player, bench player and starter, starter and all-star, and all-star and MVP.

Ryan, I wasn't at SABR, so I don't have any idea. I was just pointing out that saying that there's statistical significance is not the same as saying that it's meaningful. Yes, 7%/12% would be significant in real terms. (I am a little suspicious of all those allegeds and suspecteds, though.)

Why is it ridiculous?

Because he is mockingly telling a player who is good at his role to "hang it up"
Thats tripe to me.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7429/1459

The translated point: players saw other players take steroids and get better. No one was willing to get left behind for the sake of scientific research.

Wasn't there also a study presented at the last SABR conference which indicated that, among those suspected of using PEDs, there was an average of a 12% increase in performance (qualified in, I think, runs created, but I could be wrong) after the players were alleged to have started using PEDs,

The problem with that is there is a built in bias in the study since when some players are alleged to have started taking PEDs is influenced by increases in their performance

Ryan, I wasn't at SABR, so I don't have any idea. I was just pointing out that saying that there's statistical significance is not the same as saying that it's meaningful. Yes, 7%/12% would be significant in real terms. (I am a little suspicious of all those allegeds and suspecteds, though.)

I'm also suspicious about the allegeds and suspecteds, but the results are interesting in the apparent magnitude. That being said, JPWF13 raises a very good point in the problem with selecting the data points (players) for the study - if a guy used PEDs and both didn't see a performance boost and didn't end up in the Mitchell report or under any other allegations, then he's not included in the sample.

Is it just me or is everyone waiting for kevin to sweep out of the sky here like a harpy or basilisk?

Possibly. Chris Dial, for one, has argued extensively on this site that increased muscle mass can reduce flexibility which would offset the gains from increased strength.

They said the same thing in the mid 20th century. It wasn't until serious weight training and muscle gain that we saw the prodigious power numbers we see today.

Is it just me or is everyone waiting for kevin to sweep out of the sky here like a harpy or basilisk?

Basilisks can't swoop, but a cockatrice could.

Basilisks can't swoop, but a cockatrice could.

All those days playing Magic Cards finally come in handy and Dan The Mediocre beats me to the punchline.

Sigh.

Wasn't there also a study presented at the last SABR conference which indicated that, among those suspected of using PEDs, there was an average of a 12% increase in performance (qualified in, I think, runs created, but I could be wrong) after the players were alleged to have started using PEDs, and controlled for age. 12% (or 7% excluding Bonds) is "practically significant" - a 7% increase is the difference in many cases between AAA and MLB bench player, bench player and starter, starter and all-star, and all-star and MVP.

Seriously? someone did a study based upon the speculation of when a person started using and came up with numbers? Wow. Isn't that kinda missing a lot of points. 1. most people that go to a heavy workout routine are going to be automatically suspected even if they don't and in theory just improving your conditioning should lead to performance improvements. 2. people are suspected because of spikes after the fact (see Brady Anderson) so a study that is done based upon suspicion is already going to have a larger number of spike seasons(which could just be career years etc) 3. my guess is that the suspects are again mostly hitters, even though pitchers are caught at a higher rate and clearly have the stronger need for steroids (I still think it's funny that the average fan thinks roid use is about the sluggers, I think it's sad if any BBTFer thought that)

I can't believe that a study like that could survive any type of constructive review.

"They said the same thing in the mid 20th century. It wasn't until serious weight training and muscle gain that we saw the prodigious power numbers we see today."

They said it even before that. I remember reading criticism about Honus Wagner becoming too muscle-bound, and how it would hurt his game (it didn't, of course).

Seriously? someone did a study based upon the speculation of when a person started using and came up with numbers?

My understanding was that the speculation was based on the dates in the Mitchell Report, for whatever that's worth.

My understanding was that the speculation was based on the dates in the Mitchell Report, for whatever that's worth.

but how do you do a study like that? I mean does it take aging patterns into account? (I mean they could use pecota or similarity scores of players and see how they would have been reasonably expected to perform and then do the study by comparison) They need to get a list of similar players from the same time period and use them as control(even though their degree of roid usage is not known) As it's possible that some environments were more productive to a certain style of hitter. what about the overall environment? etc.

I just don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude anything from a study like that and present it even as evidence. (yes we all know Kevin could, but I'm talking about reasonable people who are trying to be objective)

You mean a defensively challenged corner OF who hit .371 for a month in Colorado Springs, with a poor K/BB ratio, middling power, and who had never shown anything even approaching that performance before (or since) didn't get to have a Major League career?

OH YEAH LAWSUIT IS ON!

So, legal eagles ....

Say I'm an accountant at Corporation X (oh, let's call them Enron). Some of my colleagues come up with creative but not necessarily illegal accounting practices that work in the company's (at least the Board's) favor and, oddly enough, the Board winks at the creativity and promotes these accountants leaving me behind.

Could I actually successfully sue for lost wages?