Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, September 20, 2007

Study: Batters may achieve dramatic increases in home runs through steroids

More grist for the mill…

Steroid use by a Major League Baseball slugger may produce only modest increases in muscle mass and bat and ball speed but still boost home run production by 50 percent or more, according to a new study by Tufts University physicist Roger Tobin.

...

“A change of only a few percent in the average speed of the batted ball, which can reasonably be expected from steroid use, is enough to increase home run production by at least 50 percent,” he says. This disproportionate effect arises because home runs are relatively rare events that occur on the “tail of the range distribution” of batted balls.

“In most any statistical distribution—of people’s heights, SAT scores, or how far baseballs are hit—there’s a large bump where most of the values fall, with the graph falling rapidly as you move away from that region in either direction toward the rarer values,” explains Tobin. “It’s a well-known statistical property of such distributions that a relatively small shift in the center point of the distribution can produce a much larger proportional change in the number of values well above or below the center. Because the distribution’s ‘tail’ is particularly sensitive to small changes in the peak and/or width, home run records can be more strongly affected by steroid use than other athletic accomplishments.”

Mike Emeigh Posted: September 20, 2007 at 03:41 PM | 196 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
  Related News: Steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:11 AM (#2534888)
If restrained amusement equals hysteria, you certainly can send the butterfly nets after me.



No worries: I don't think they'll come after you just because you're so rhetorically tone deaf that you think you're conveying "restrained amusement."
   102. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 10:57 AM (#2535015)
I think the only way that any type of PED could be shown to have increased home run hitting is in a controlled environment. Without that, there is no way to separate the advantages accrued to steroids or HGH.
   103. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 12:49 PM (#2535107)
I think the only way that any type of PED could be shown to have increased home run hitting is in a controlled environment. Without that, there is no way to separate the advantages accrued to steroids or HGH.

IOW without a time machine there's no way to draw any conclusions about anything that any juicers may have done.

If all you mean is that there's no way to affix a precise number (or percentage) to a steroid advantage, then there's no argument. But who among us hysteria-mongers has suggested that?

But are you taking this point further, to suggest that without a time machine, or without a similarly impossible "controlled environment," we have no way of inferring strong possibilities about the effects of steroids on home run production?

If not---if all you mean is that there's no way of "proving" such an effect, then that's nothing but a variant of the impossibility of assigning a "percentage" to such an advantage. And again, that's a bar that nobody could ever jump over.

But rather than try to read your mind, let me ask you directly: Do you think that it's impossible (without a "controlled environment" of a type that would itself be impossible to re-create) for reasonable people to look at what we already know about Bonds (BALCO plus his numbers), add the sort of data about distance that I'm talking about, and come to a reasonable (if not "proven") conclusion about Bonds's steroid advantage based on that?

If that hypothetical distance study came up "negative"---if it showed that Bonds increased his home run rate but that the average distance of his home runs remanined fairly constant, and that there was no significant jump in the number of tape measure jobs after 1998---wouldn't you think that this was strong evidence that steroids had little or no effect on his productivity?

Such a finding would certainly revise my own thinking on the subject.

But would an opposite finding have no effect at all on yours?

And do you think that trying to collect such data is nothing but "creationism?"
   104. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 12:57 PM (#2535118)
But are you taking this point further, to suggest that without a time machine, or without a similarly impossible "controlled environment," we have no way of inferring strong possibilities about the effects of steroids on home run production?

Look, this really isn't that complicated. Getting stronger helps you hit the ball farther. That's why ballplayers, from middle school on up, are always trying to get stronger. Steroids help you get stronger. That's why some ballplayers use steroids. I apologize to anyone who finds those inferences to be either too strong or not strong enough.
   105. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:00 PM (#2535122)
Look, this really isn't that complicated. Getting stronger helps you hit the ball farther. That's why ballplayers, from middle school on up, are always trying to get stronger. Steroids help you get stronger. That's why some ballplayers use steroids. I apologize to anyone who finds those inferences to be either too strong or not strong enough.

Of course you're right, but it still sounds pretty hysterical to me.
   106. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:18 PM (#2535142)
Speaking of hysterical reaction.

Thanks for continuing to reinforce my analogy.


Yeah, how dare anyone be so anti-intellectual as to ignore the anecdotes of Tom House and Jim Leyritz, the veritable Clarence Darrow and Albert Einstein of this little world.

If you think that what I and Andy and the others on this side have wrote is unscientific, you're blind.
   107. CrosbyBird Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:44 PM (#2535181)
And what if my proposed HR distance study showed that Bonds had not increased his home run distance in his steroid years?

To me that would lead to one of two possibly inescapable conclusions.

Either he really hadn't been juicing, or....

The juicing had no effect.

Not really. He could have been juicing and gained a positive effect that showed up elsewhere (perhaps an abnormally high batting average, or ability to stay relatively healthy for his age and appear in more games).

Comparing mean HR distances could lead you to believe the opposite of what is happening. Imagine if the difference is Bonds hitting more "just out of the park" shots. Now there are more HR but a greater percentage of them come on less perfectly struck balls.

There has to be some theoretical maximum distance for a HR ball, when you account for air resistance, physical properties of bat and ball, maximum human potential, etc. And there's also no guarantee that this is anything approaching a linear progression. Adding 10% muscle mass to a 230 pound player may have a dramatically different effect than adding 10% muscle mass to a 150 pound player.
   108. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:45 PM (#2535182)
IOW without a time machine there's no way to draw any conclusions about anything that any juicers may have done.


If you're asking me whether or not PEDs have some effect on home run hitting, my answer has been consistently that they do, Andy. I'm not a steroid apologist.

My point is the degree that we can estimate it to a particular percentage point by isolating all other factors, which I can't see how it can be done at the present.
   109. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 01:59 PM (#2535208)
If that hypothetical distance study came up "negative"---if it showed that Bonds increased his home run rate but that the average distance of his home runs remanined fairly constant, and that there was no significant jump in the number of tape measure jobs after 1998---wouldn't you think that this was strong evidence that steroids had little or no effect on his productivity?

Such a finding would certainly revise my own thinking on the subject.

But would an opposite finding have no effect at all on yours?

And do you think that trying to collect such data is nothing but "creationism?"


Again, Andy, I'm not with the "steroid brigade," so this question should be asked to someone else. But if you're asking me whether or not Bonds has used PEDs, the answer is yes. But, again, my point is how do you separate the PED from all other causes and effects (including non-PED influenced weight training). I'm all for trying to see if it's possible, but it's going to be extremely difficult from a statistical standpoint.
   110. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:07 PM (#2535220)
John, we don't have any real disagreement. Thanks for clearing up that last post of yours.

And what if my proposed HR distance study showed that Bonds had not increased his home run distance in his steroid years?

To me that would lead to one of two possibly inescapable conclusions.

Either he really hadn't been juicing, or....

The juicing had no effect.

Not really. He could have been juicing and gained a positive effect that showed up elsewhere (perhaps an abnormally high batting average, or ability to stay relatively healthy for his age and appear in more games).

Well, we already know that his BA didn't show any pronounced jump until 2002, by which time his already selective eye had gotten to the point where he almost never swung at a bad pitch. His 1999-2001 BAs were .262, .306 and .328.

And if all steroids did was to keep him healthy, then few of us would have had any complaints about steroids, any more than we complain about Tommy John or lasik surgery, or cortisone shots. But Barry Bonds was relatively healthy all during his 20's and early 30's, and he never showed those kinds of power numbers during that part of his career. "Better health" being the cause of those power rate spikes is not a very plausible explanation.
   111. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:11 PM (#2535227)
My point is the degree that we can estimate it to a particular percentage point by isolating all other factors, which I can't see how it can be done at the present.


This has been asked and answered, as least for Bonds. I'll answer it again. Step-by-step, all scientific-like.

1. Accept the essentially irrefutable notion that there is a scientifically meaningful line of demarcation in three critical ratios at 1998 -- HR/AB, W/PA, and GB/FB.

2. Note that the second and third of these ratios make Bonds look better, not worse.

3. Calculate the pre-line HR/AB ratio.

4. Assume a continuation of the pre-line HR/AB ratio, but add back in the ABs taken away from the much higher post-line propensity to walk him.

5. Add back in the requisite number of additional HRs post-line that resulted from the scientifically meaningful increase in the FB/GB ratio.

Without the GB/FB help, Bonds was at over 660 HRs back in May and is probably at 675 or higher now. Giving him credit for the extra FBs puts him, as a wild guess, somewhere around 700. Maybe more.

IOW, without steroids, I'm perfectly willing to concede that Bonds is a 700 HR man (assuming I haven't screwed up the math somehow). And, of course, assuming that he would have had the same number of PAs without steroids, which I'm willing to do, since the empirical evidence to me shows that the likelihood of breakdown is higher with steroids and Bonds has certainly transcended that.
   112. JC in DC Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:19 PM (#2535236)
For those who missed the beginnings of the BBTF Steroids Wars, they may be interested to know that the likelihood that strength increases HR hitting was widely disputed. We even had, Andy may recall, an argument about "significant" increases after the initial denials that PEDs and increased muscle mass would help at all. So, it's good to see that the discussion has at least progressed to the point where most here find it intuitive that being stronger will conduce to more HR hitting.
   113. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:27 PM (#2535240)
For those who missed the beginnings of the BBTF Steroids Wars, they may be interested to know that the likelihood that strength increases HR hitting was widely disputed. We even had, Andy may recall, an argument about "significant" increases after the initial denials that PEDs and increased muscle mass would help at all. So, it's good to see that the discussion has at least progressed to the point where most here find it intuitive that being stronger will conduce to more HR hitting.


Yeah, I'm sorry I missed that part. I found the site around the time ol' ex-Tiger Champ Summers was being cited as an Bondsian example of a late-career performance spike and have been irresistably drawn to the show ever since.
   114. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:31 PM (#2535244)
For those who missed the beginnings of the BBTF Steroids Wars, they may be interested to know that the likelihood that strength increases HR hitting was widely disputed.

Oh, was it ever.

We even had, Andy may recall, an argument about "significant" increases after the initial denials that PEDs and increased muscle mass would help at all.

That was Stage Two, which at least has the advantage of being harder to refute with too much precision.

So, it's good to see that the discussion has at least progressed to the point where most here find it intuitive that being stronger will conduce to more HR hitting.

Stage Three seems to be that if we can't know everything, we really can't deduce anything: Scientific reasoning, BTF style.
   115. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:40 PM (#2535253)
For those who missed the beginnings of the BBTF Steroids Wars, they may be interested to know that the likelihood that strength increases HR hitting was widely disputed.

I didn't miss that, and while my personal position was that there wasn't much in the way of good reasons to jump to any conclusions about who was doing what (after all, it's not like there's a statue of limitations in the court of public opinion), I always found the notion that increased strength wouldn't help an already good hitter hit for more power to be completely laughable.

IOW, without steroids, I'm perfectly willing to concede that Bonds is a 700 HR man (assuming I haven't screwed up the math somehow). And, of course, assuming that he would have had the same number of PAs without steroids, which I'm willing to do, since the empirical evidence to me shows that the likelihood of breakdown is higher with steroids and Bonds has certainly transcended that.

Sugar Bear, you're still not isolating strength gain due to steroid use from strength gain by other (legitimate?) means. And I don't see how we ever can. Unless there's evidence that Bonds or any other player first maxed out on the weight training and legal supplements, played a year or two that way, and only then added steroids in hopes of a bigger boost. I'm not aware of any such evidence.
   116. Mike Emeigh Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:41 PM (#2535256)
Tobin's full paper.

-- MWE
   117. CrosbyBird Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:51 PM (#2535271)
For those who missed the beginnings of the BBTF Steroids Wars, they may be interested to know that the likelihood that strength increases HR hitting was widely disputed.

That's a gross oversimplification.

The dispute was whether there's a ceiling for already exceptionally strong players where adding muscle no longer provides an increase in HR hitting. As far as I know, there really hasn't been any concession on that end either, so this "Stage Two" and "Stage Three" talk is really nonsense.

Well, we already know that his BA didn't show any pronounced jump until 2002, by which time his already selective eye had gotten to the point where he almost never swung at a bad pitch. His 1999-2001 BAs were .262, .306 and .328.

career: .298
1999: .262
2000: .306
*2001: .328
*2002: .370
*2003: .341
*2004: .362
2005: .286

Those seasons absolutely stand out in terms of BA. The BA change is more dramatic than the HR boom.

And if all steroids did was to keep him healthy, then few of us would have had any complaints about steroids, any more than we complain about Tommy John or lasik surgery, or cortisone shots. But Barry Bonds was relatively healthy all during his 20's and early 30's, and he never showed those kinds of power numbers during that part of his career. "Better health" being the cause of those power rate spikes is not a very plausible explanation.

Other things changed. The "better health" issue is staying in the lineup and staying in the lineup effectively as he aged (playing more games closer to 100% ability). It's quite possible that the effort of heavy weight training and day-to-day grind of the baseball season would have hurt his numbers if he didn't use something to help him recover more quickly. That's a known effect of steroids: faster recovery.

I'm not claiming that "all steroids did is make Bonds healthier." I'm saying if it had any effect at all, it would not show up in HR distances. If better contact had any effect at all, it would not show up in HR distances.

And HR distances could also be affected by tighter balls, better equipment, pitchers throwing harder... all things on totally independent axes from Bonds alleged PED use.

It's just the reason why your proposed study really doesn't provide much help in the way of determining WHAT was different. All it says is "Bonds did [did not] hit longer HR from 2001-2004." That's information with very little value.
   118. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2535278)
For those who missed the beginnings of the BBTF Steroids Wars, they may be interested to know that the likelihood that strength increases HR hitting was widely disputed. We even had, Andy may recall, an argument about "significant" increases after the initial denials that PEDs and increased muscle mass would help at all. So, it's good to see that the discussion has at least progressed to the point where most here find it intuitive that being stronger will conduce to more HR hitting


I never progressed from that point, JC, since I never stated that steroids (back then in 2002, I don't even think people were referring to PEDs on BBTF) didn't have any effects years ago. Like Ignoratio, I wasn't ready to accuse somebody without any real evidence (suspicions? different story), but I understood the effects of steroids when some of you were still in diapers! :-D
   119. CFiJ Posted: September 21, 2007 at 02:57 PM (#2535280)
I was looking for one Twain quote ("In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.") and found a different one that seemed rather apropos for this thread: "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."
   120. CFiJ Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:01 PM (#2535286)
I should add this one as well, though: "It were not best that we should all think alike; it is difference of opinion that makes horse races."
   121. JC in DC Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:02 PM (#2535287)
That's a gross oversimplification.


Not really, Crosby. I don't even recall the discussion you're talking about. We had much more general "arguments" about whether being stronger really helps. Anyway, it's neither here nor there at this point.

I look forward to the scientists telling me how terrible Tobin's paper is. Someone should invite him to the site.
   122. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:03 PM (#2535294)
Sugar Bear, you're still not isolating strength gain due to steroid use from strength gain by other (legitimate?) means. And I don't see how we ever can. Unless there's evidence that Bonds or any other player first maxed out on the weight training and legal supplements, played a year or two that way, and only then added steroids in hopes of a bigger boost. I'm not aware of any such evidence.


And I really didn't ever say I was. The method doesn't show that steroids caused the line of demarcation. We can refer to it as whatever happened to cause the line if you'd like.

There's really no doubt, though, that the line exists.
   123. robinred Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:04 PM (#2535295)
Stage Three seems to be that if we can't know everything, we really can't deduce anything: Scientific reasoning, BTF style.


I don't think that is the message. What I am hearing is that there are too many variables to make precise estimates and and "deductions" that are made or "strong possibilities" that are evidenced will be of highly questionable value as well.
   124. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:08 PM (#2535302)
I'm skimming Tobin's study right now and the first interesting thing is that it appears he's considering the home-run level to be the average of the top 5 hitters and how many people hit over 45 in a season. I haven't gotten far enough to see if he uses that definition throughout - but that's the root of the excerpt quoted in post 12.

"Figure 1 illustrates the explosion of home runs in the 1990s. It displays the
average of the five highest individual home run totals in the major leagues for
3
each year from 1960 to 2006 (omitting the strike-shortened seasons of 1981 and
1994), together with the number of players who hit more than 45 home runs in
each season. An abrupt increase in the mid-90s is clearly visible, together with a
drop back to historical levels in 2003, the year that Major League Baseball
instituted steroid testing.9"
   125. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:13 PM (#2535308)
And I really didn't ever say I was.

Fair enough, but some people seem to think that they can.

We can refer to it as whatever happened to cause the line if you'd like.

I'd probably refer to it as all the things that happened to cause the line. But maybe that's just me.
   126. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:14 PM (#2535310)
I don't think that is the message. What I am hearing is that there are too many variables to make precise estimates and and "deductions" that are made or "strong possibilities" that are evidenced will be of highly questionable value as well.


That's what Andy said -- you're looking for precision you aren't going to find and are unwilling to accept deductions.

There are these things called "confidence intervals" that scientists and other data studiers use which I'm sure hasn't escaped the non-creationist commentators on the site (though, interestingly, I haven't seen many discuss them.)
   127. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:21 PM (#2535317)
I look forward to the scientists telling me how terrible Tobin's paper is.

Here's one paragraph from the introductiion:

Figure 1 illustrates the explosion of home runs in the 1990s. It displays the
average of the five highest individual home run totals in the major leagues for
each year from 1960 to 2006 (omitting the strike-shortened seasons of 1981 and
1994), together with the number of players who hit more than 45 home runs in
each season. An abrupt increase in the mid-90s is clearly visible, together with a
drop back to historical levels in 2003, the year that Major League Baseball
instituted steroid testing.


I think a lot of people would have a problem with using the league leading HR totals rather than overall HR rates as indicative of an "explosion" of home runs. It seems that this might be a setup for some faulty assumptions. Other than that, I'll have to get to it later. I have to turn my attention to my paying job for the next few hours.
   128. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:28 PM (#2535329)
John, we don't have any real disagreement. Thanks for clearing up that last post of yours.


No problem, Andy.
   129. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2535334)
Ok, so Tobin moves away from any relation to actual stats once he gets past the setup and moves purely into a mathematical/physics discussion. It's a bit past what I'm willing to delve into in detail, but it looks pretty sound to me.

There are a few assumptions that may or may not make sense. For example, he assumes a HR for any ball that's > 9ft high at 380 ft. If you're going to pick one value, that's probably a fair one. But does it make sense to pick a single value? Is there a physical difference on balls pulled versus those hit the other way, for example?

Also, he chooses a value when calculating the distribution of ball speeds that forces the number of homers on batted balls to be 10%. That's really high for the league as a whole (but obviously not for the top home run hitters).
   130. rfloh Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2535337)
From the study:

"It is reasonable to assume that a 10% increase in an athlete's muscle mass will also increase the force exerted by those muscles by about 10%".

This is a gross generalisation. Firstly it depends whether that increase is either sarcoplasmic or myofibrillar hypertrophy. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy will generally not increase force potential at all. Or in layman's terms, compare an olympic weightlifter with a bodybuilder.

Secondly, the neural system also plays a tremendously important role. Especially in a situation where the external resistance, ie the baseball bat, is minimal, rate of force development is just as important as maximum force potential. Compare a shot putter to a javelin thrower. The shot weight for males is about 7kg, about 15 lbs, about 4kg for females, about 9 lbs. The javelin 0.8 and 0.6 kgs respectively. Elite shot putters might spend about 50% of their training time on heavy resistance training, whereas elite javelin throwers 15-25%.
   131. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:35 PM (#2535342)
I still don't see why the Tobins of the world make themselves jump through so many hoops and assumptions when they can use video to measure ball velocity off the bat. That's a much better way to measure the force exerted by the muscles and changes therein.

Am I missing something here?
   132. robinred Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2535347)
That's what Andy said -- you're looking for precision you aren't going to find and are unwilling to accept deductions.


That's not the point. The point is that Andy (and you) are apparently placing great stock in the deductions that can potentially be made because you/he see the variables as being more controllable/removable/measurable.

Other people apparently don't agree.

As to me, I am not sure. I plan to read the study this weekend and see what I can learn.
   133. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2535361)
I still don't see why the Tobins of the world make themselves jump through so many hoops and assumptions when they can use video to measure ball velocity off the bat. That's a much better way to measure the force exerted by the muscles and changes therein.

Am I missing something here?


Because that just measures what changed not why it changed. It could have changed for any number of reasons.

He's demonstrating a causal chain that under the assumption (based on existing studies) that the use of steroids causes an X% change in muscle mass, there's an X% change in bat speed, which causes Y% change in batted ball distance, which causes Z% change in homers.

Your approach skips that first step. If there's an X% change in bat speed, 80% could be steroids and 20% could be juiced ball, for example. So it's not quite as interesting a story - if one that's more grounded in empirical results rather than in mathematical models.
   134. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:50 PM (#2535372)
If there's an X% change in bat speed, 80% could be steroids and 20% could be juiced ball, for example.


Then you still have to break down that hypothetical 80% into two groups: what a player would do with an intensive non-steroid workout program and what that player would do with an intensive steroid workout program. That first group will be at least large enough that it just can't be ignored.
   135. McCoy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 03:51 PM (#2535373)
I'm no expert but after reading his research this is what it appears he did. He started off with the view that 50 homers a year was normal for the best of the best and then figured that a 50% increase or so was evident in the "steroid" years. He then wanted to see if it was possible that steroids could in fact have that large of an impact on the game. He then said, "well lets say that steroids increase muscle mass by 10%, if it does that can we have an increase of 50%" After making some more assumptions and doing the math he says "yep if muscle mass is increased by 10% it is indeed possible to increase homers by 50%". But to me that doesn't prove that steroids do that nor that it is not possible to do that without steroids. To me it is a simple thought exorcise.
   136. AROM Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2535399)
I still don't see why the Tobins of the world make themselves jump through so many hoops and assumptions when they can use video to measure ball velocity off the bat. That's a much better way to measure the force exerted by the muscles and changes therein.

Am I missing something here?


Is there a way to get video footage of all 760+ homers Barry has hit? Then spend some time playing around with Hittracker.

Your approach skips that first step. If there's an X% change in bat speed, 80% could be steroids and 20% could be juiced ball, for example. So it's not quite as interesting a story - if one that's more grounded in empirical results rather than in mathematical models.


You're right in that video analysis isn't going to answer evrey question, but it would be progress. Did Barry Bonds hit more homers because he's generated more force with the bat? It would be nice to get a yes/no answer to that before we speculate as to why.
   137. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2535403)
He's demonstrating a causal chain that under the assumption (based on existing studies) that the use of steroids causes an X% change in muscle mass, there's an X% change in bat speed, which causes Y% change in batted ball distance, which causes Z% change in homers.


But I'm not wondering why; I'm wondering whether. And that question is answered better by video than assumptions regarding muscle mass and steroids.

If the ball came off Bonds's bat faster, later (compared to a control group), that's something worth knowing. And if it didn't, that's something worth knowing.
   138. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:07 PM (#2535410)
Is there a way to get video footage of all 760+ homers Barry has hit? Then spend some time playing around with Hittracker.


I would love to see the data on that, regardless of the reasons why.
   139. robinred Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:08 PM (#2535413)
yep if muscle mass is increased by 10% it is indeed possible to increase homers by 50%".

So it's not quite as interesting a story - if one that's more grounded in empirical results rather than in mathematical models.



As I mentioned upthread, this aspect leads to some of my skepticism, separate from the scientific merits.

1. The guy puts a joke on Bonds' name in the title (as Craig said, probably to help with funding/attention)
2. The Tufts PR Department and Tobin put out an eye-catching headline-worthy number "Steroids could increase HRs by 50%!"
3. It gets picked up by yahoo! and other sources
4. A simplified version therefore fits perfectly into one aspect of the anti-Bonds narrative:

"Hey, man, did you see a scientist proved steroids can help you hit 50% more homers? I TOLD you no way Bonds comes close to 756 without steroids. He gets 600 at most. That cheating ######."

Now, before I get accused of being a Kool Aid drinker, I think Bonds took PEDs and they helped him and Tobin's study may have merit. But in addition to the methodological and precision issues, there are other reasons to look at this with a critical eye. The "50%" made me think Tobin may have a little bit of the same attitude as the guy who put out the stuff saying Ruth would hit 100 HRs a year or whatever if he played now.
   140. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:14 PM (#2535427)
The entire 10% thing is based on one ten week study of 40 weightlifters (randomized into four groups -- control, exercise, testosterone, testosterone + exercise). The 10% figure is either conservative or liberal, depending on how you look at that data. And then there's a whole slew of other questions, like whether this population is really relevant to baseball players, whether further gains would be possible over longer times, or if the weight-training only group would catch up, etc. The batted ball modeling probably would be better if he explicitly accounted for GB/FB -- something that even SugarBear did. ;-)

I was a little bit surprised that there isn't more heavy duty stats in the paper.
   141. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2535437)
"Hey, man, did you see a scientist proved steroids can help you hit 50% more homers? I TOLD you no way Bonds comes close to 756 without steroids. He gets 600 at most. That cheating ######."


Hey, I thought I said 700. :-)

Without seeing any of it beyond what's been said here, my guess is, for the reasons you say (and for that matter I've said), this paper won't add a lot to the discussion. The idea that you can extrapolate force exerted on weights to force exerted through a bat on a moving spherical target seems pretty dubious.
   142. robinred Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:27 PM (#2535452)
Hey, I thought I said 700. :-)


Indeed, because you think through your positions and attempt to demonstrate their validity based on logic. Many people who see that "50%" won't, however.
   143. CrosbyBird Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:28 PM (#2535457)
until Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. For the next 35 years no player hit more
than 52 in a season. But between 1998 and 2006, players hit more than 60 home
runs in a season six times.


The spike doesn't look as significant (or starts earlier) if you look at the 1994 season: Griffey played 111 out of 112 possible games and hit 40 HR, on pace for 58 in a full season; Matt Williams was on pace to tie the record at 61 in a full season. It's not certain that Belle (1995, 50, 144 games) or the 1994 guys would have cracked the "52" mark, but there's a decent chance that 3 or 4 players would have mid-50 HR totals. (Bonds 1994: 39, for reference).

But really, this tells you an awful lot about the problems with the methodology off the bat.

For purposes of this article, I will assume that the basic effect of steroids is
to increase muscle mass by about 10%, with other aspects of the player’s
performance remaining constant.


That's the initial premise: a nice round number of 10%, not different for different talent levels or body types, and of course, not having any other positive or negative effects on performance. It's like the old Sidney Harris cartoon with the scientists by the blackboard with the intermediate step "A MIRACLE HAPPENS HERE."
   144. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:37 PM (#2535472)
Andy:
Well, we already know that his BA didn't show any pronounced jump until 2002, by which time his already selective eye had gotten to the point where he almost never swung at a bad pitch. His 1999-2001 BAs were .262, .306 and .328.


Well, that 2001 batting average of .328 was the second best of his career and his best batting average in 8 years.
   145. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:47 PM (#2535491)
Your approach skips that first step. If there's an X% change in bat speed, 80% could be steroids and 20% could be juiced ball, for example.


Right. Or a lighter bat. Or a change in muscle mass which occurred naturally.
   146. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2535502)
Right. Or a lighter bat. Or a change in muscle mass which occurred naturally.


No and yes. A lighter bat, everything else equal, will impart less force to a pitched ball.

Yes on the point everyone understands. Let's get an answer to the force/velocity question, then we can figure out why.
   147. AROM Posted: September 21, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2535504)
Or a lighter bat


A lighter bat will increase your bat speed, but a heavier one increase the force on the ball, and the speed at which the ball comes off the bat, and that's what's important. At least if I remember my physics of baseball correctly.
   148. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:03 PM (#2535516)

That's the initial premise: a nice round number of 10%, not different for different talent levels or body types, and of course, not having any other positive or negative effects on performance. It's like the old Sidney Harris cartoon with the scientists by the blackboard with the intermediate step "A MIRACLE HAPPENS HERE."



There's a web site for his cartoons.

The caption for that one is "I think you should be more explicit here in step two."
   149. McCoy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:03 PM (#2535520)
Okay but doesn't a lighter bat that generates great bat speed also increase the force on a ball and the speed at which it comes off the bat?

I mean if I am swinging a 14,000 ton dreadnought (sorry been reading Masse lately) at .5 mph and a baseball traveling at 86 mph strikes that dreadnought is it really going to come off that dreadnought at a much greater speed? Now if I swing a 31 oz bat at 130 mph and hit that ball traveling at 86 MPH won't the speed be much much greater?

Isn't the big reason for using a lighter bat is that it destroys the everything else equal bit? A lighter bat creates greater speed thus changing the everything else equal bit. That was the part the mythbusters ignored when they were looking at the corked bat myth.
   150. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2535535)
He's demonstrating a causal chain that under the assumption (based on existing studies) that the use of steroids causes an X% change in muscle mass, there's an X% change in bat speed, which causes Y% change in batted ball distance, which causes Z% change in homers.

But I'm not wondering why; I'm wondering whether. And that question is answered better by video than assumptions regarding muscle mass and steroids.

-------------

Is there a way to get video footage of all 760+ homers Barry has hit? Then spend some time playing around with Hittracker.

I would love to see the data on that, regardless of the reasons why.

Two Primates who don't agree on everything, but have one important thing in common: They don't discount data before they've seen it. Others might take the hint.

Well, we already know that his BA didn't show any pronounced jump until 2002, by which time his already selective eye had gotten to the point where he almost never swung at a bad pitch. His 1999-2001 BAs were .262, .306 and .328.

Well, that 2001 batting average of .328 was the second best of his career and his best batting average in 8 years.

If your point is that it's possible that steroids might help BA as well as power, I won't dispute that, though if they did it seemed to take three or four years to do it. But whereas Bonds had hit for higher BA when he was 28, he sure as hell never had come close to those post-1998 home run rates.
   151. Gaelan Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:12 PM (#2535538)
p=mv
   152. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2535555)
Andy, how do you propose to obtain accurate distance measurements for Bonds's home runs?
   153. mr. man Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:23 PM (#2535568)
i'm not sold...the fact is there are plenty of players in the majors capable of generating home-run power on nearly every swing--for an example, watch batting parctice. People like to use Wily Mo Pena as an example, but he's not the only one. Many big league sluggers can hit one third or more of BP meatballs into homers.

I'd like to see some mention of the fact that the key element of home run hitting isn't only the power; a hitter must also:

-recognize where a pitch is going and what it will do,
-time the pitch so he can hit it fair and at the maximum power of his swing,
-hit it squarely so he gets appropriate loft rather than just popping it up or hitting it down.

All three of those stem from good eyesight, hand-eye coordination, quick reaction and practice. You can't inject any of those.
   154. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:30 PM (#2535591)
I mean if I am swinging a 14,000 ton dreadnought (sorry been reading Masse lately)


I have that book myself, McCoy, but I haven't started it yet. Maybe after I finish my book on the Peloponnesian War I'll give it a chance.
   155. AROM Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:34 PM (#2535605)
Okay but doesn't a lighter bat that generates great bat speed also increase the force on a ball and the speed at which it comes off the bat?


Yeah. There has to be some balance, and its probably different for individual players. You're not going to be able to swing the dreadnaught fast enough (if you can swing it at all) to hit a ball very far, and no matter how much faster you can swing a 3 ouce souvenir bat, you aren't going to hit it very far.

There's a tradeoff in choosing a lighter or smaller bat, and I think we have to assume the players are making the choice that is optimal for them as individuals. If everyone using a 34 ounce bat could increase bat speed by going to 32, then 31, then 29, I think they would have already done so.
   156. Dan Turkenkopf Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:39 PM (#2535620)
They don't discount data before they've seen it. Others might take the hint.


Andy, I don't know if I'm included in that list. Probably I don't post enough to make my views clear :-)

But since I'm quoted at the top of your post, let me explain the specific rationale behind what you quoted. SBB asked why Tobin would endeavor to look at the problem this way versus looking at the bat speed data from video. My answer was that he was interested in a very specific question - could steroids alone explain an increase in homers. Looking at the bat speed data wouldn't answer the question he was interested in.

On the larger question of getting more data:

More data is better if people are willing to understand the limitations of that data. I think we all would admit that seeing that Bonds hit the ball farther/faster wouldn't prove conclusively anything about steroids, because it would be impossible to tease out the actual effect of the steroids. That point has been at least half of the conversation on the thread. I'm not sure everyone would be able to make that distinction.

That said, you can't hold back data because people will misinterpret it. I agree it would be very interesting to see just because I intuitively think he's been hitting the ball farther/faster and I'd like to know whether that was true.

I'd also be curious if we could do the same analysis on a roughly contemporaneous power hitter who's considered clean - Junior, possibly. Two data points wouldn't necessarily show a lot, but we might be able to make some reasonable inferences from it.
   157. AROM Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2535624)
All three of those stem from good eyesight, hand-eye coordination, quick reaction and practice. You can't inject any of those.


Some might argue with you on eyesight and the effects of HGH.

Yes, skill is the most important ingredient in hitting period and hitting homers. No matter how big and strong he got, Randy Savage's baseball career couldn't get through the minors and forced him into sports entertainment.

But you take a guy with the skill, give him an edge in strength and supposedly bat speed, and he doesn't have to get all of it to blast it out of the park. So some of his warning track flies carry a little farther and leave the park.
   158. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2535627)
If everyone using a 34 ounce bat could increase bat speed by going to 32, then 31, then 29, I think they would have already done so.


But there's no question a lighter bat would increase "bat speed," which is the comment I was responding to. The force exerted on the ball is a different issue.
   159. rfloh Posted: September 21, 2007 at 05:41 PM (#2535631)
F = M A

Force = Mass * acceleration

Assuming accelaration does not increase, a lighter bat will mean less force generated. HOWEVER, rate of force development also needs to be taken into account. Generally, with lower external resistance, lower (M), ie a lighter bat, it is easier to generate maximal force more quickly, thus increasing "A".
   160. Gaelan Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2535681)
All three of those stem from good eyesight, hand-eye coordination, quick reaction and practice. You can't inject any of those.


Sure you can.

I'll also say that I believe one of the wasy that steroids helped Bonds wasn't simply in making him stronger but making him healthier. Joe Morgan used to always say that there were two trajectories to a career. On the one hand your athletic ability keeps getting worse, on the other hand, you keep learning about the game and keep "getting better" at it. Your peak is where these two lines intersect. He used to always talk about how, just when you have it all figured out, and you know exactly what you have to do to be succesful, your body fails you. My theory is that this is precisely what happened with Bonds except steroids stopped his body from failing him.

And BTW, before the idiots in the audience make another asinine comparison with a cortisone shot, the fact that one of the advantages of steroids, under this scenario, is to "keep players healthy" in no way mitigates their illigitimate status and in no way opens the door to another fallacious comparison to tommy john surgery or vitamins.
   161. Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:10 PM (#2535705)
My theory is that this is precisely what happened with Bonds except steroids stopped his body from failing him.

And BTW, before the idiots in the audience make another asinine comparison with a cortisone shot, the fact that one of the advantages of steroids, under this scenario, is to "keep players healthy" in no way mitigates their illigitimate status and in no way opens the door to another fallacious comparison to tommy john surgery or vitamins.


How about amps? In the scenario you outline, it seems that steroids are merely restorative. It didn't give him athletic ability he didn't have. It restored his 25 year old ability, which when coupled with his 35 year old knowledge, created a perfect storm.
   162. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:12 PM (#2535712)
I agree completely Gaelan, but the counter to that is that steroids make a lot of guys break down early because their bodies aren't made to support their increased muscle mass. The list of guys like this is legion and I won't bother to list the suspects and open another worm can.

My personal belief is that Bonds's otherworldly athletic talents and makeup allowed him to buck this trend too. The knee he had two or three years ago had all the markings of steroid breakdown, but he overcame it.

The guy's simply a marvel.**

(** Our opponents' use of this fact as a sword against us notwithstanding.)
   163. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:19 PM (#2535732)

Two Primates who don't agree on everything, but have one important thing in common: They don't discount data before they've seen it. Others might take the hint.


They're also probably smart enough to recognize and remember the acronym GIGO.

Others might take a hint.
   164. Chris Dial Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:27 PM (#2535761)
But you take a guy with the skill, give him an edge in strength and supposedly bat speed, and he doesn't have to get all of it to blast it out of the park. So some of his warning track flies carry a little farther and leave the park.

And line drives that account for most hits now hang longer and are caught for outs.
   165. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:28 PM (#2535767)
The more data available, the better we all are. It's the analysis of that data that needs to be ruthlessly scrutinized from both sides of the debate. This obviously should apply outside of the baseball realm, too.
   166. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:35 PM (#2535796)
My personal belief is that Bonds's otherworldly athletic talents and makeup allowed him to buck this trend too. The knee he had two or three years ago had all the markings of steroid breakdown, but he overcame it.


I'm getting confused as to whether steroids are supposed to help an athlete recover, or whether they actually cause injuries. People are making both claims here.

As to Bonds's "otherworldly athletic talents," Sheffield was a Hall of Fame talent as a young player, and is associated with steroids, but Sheffield didn't turn into Babe Ruth.
   167. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:38 PM (#2535811)
p=mv

F = M A

party poopers

I'd like to see some mention of the fact that the key element of home run hitting isn't only the power; a hitter must also:

-recognize where a pitch is going and what it will do,
-time the pitch so he can hit it fair and at the maximum power of his swing,
-hit it squarely so he gets appropriate loft rather than just popping it up or hitting it down.

This is the sort of stuff that's generally covered under "all else being equal."

Some might argue with you on eyesight and the effects of HGH.

I've never seen any remotely convincing evidence of that. Besides, why would anyone take hGH to improve their eyesight when they could just have a nice, safe, simple, and legal LASIK procedure?

And line drives that account for most hits now hang longer and are caught for outs.

The ones with top spin will drop faster, no? And harder hit ground balls will be more likely to go through the infield. But of course, the assumption that getting x% stronger means that you will hit every ball x% harder and that they will therefore all travel x% farther has a lot of problems to begin with.
   168. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2535815)
I'm getting confused as to whether steroids are supposed to help an athlete recover, or whether they actually cause injuries. People are making both claims here.


Because they have both effects.
   169. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:39 PM (#2535817)
I'm getting confused as to whether steroids are supposed to help an athlete recover, or whether they actually cause injuries. People are making both claims here.

Why is that a problem? The two aren't mutually exclusive.
   170. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2535837)
But whereas Bonds had hit for higher BA when he was 28, he sure as hell never had come close to those post-1998 home run rates.


He did, however, lead the NL in AB/HR at age 28 by a rather healthy margin (11.7 to Phil Plantier's 13.6), when the overall NL HR/G rate was significantly lower than it would be in the post-'98 period. Just as he had at age 27. And as he would again at age 31.

None of which gets us very far in determing the effect of drugs vs. other factors when looking at either Bonds's or the overall league's HR rates post-'98.
   171. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:03 PM (#2535897)
I'm getting confused as to whether steroids are supposed to help an athlete recover, or whether they actually cause injuries. People are making both claims here.


Why is that a problem? The two aren't mutually exclusive.


It would be a "problem" if people are attributing a player's (baseball) health record to steroids no matter what that health record is. If steroids can cause a wide variety of health/injury outcomes, then I don't see how looking at a player's health record gets us anywhere.
   172. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2535903)
None of which gets us very far in determing the effect of drugs vs. other factors when looking at either Bonds's or the overall league's HR rates post-'98.


No, but the preciptious drop in the number might help.

You do understand that these concepts:

1. Barry Bonds was good enough clean to lead the league in HR/AB ratio

and

2. Barry Bonds wasn't clean after 1998 and his HR/AB ratio improvement shows it

are completely compatible.

Don't you?
   173. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:10 PM (#2535914)
If steroids can cause a wide variety of health/injury outcomes, then I don't see how looking at a player's health record gets us anywhere.

Well, obviously overly broad generalization never get us anywhere. "Knee injury = steroids" is pretty worthless, as is "stayed in the lineup more at age 37 than at age 35, therefore must have been juicing." But there's nothing wrong with simply acknowledging that steroids can aid recovery, and a more nuanced analysis of the specific types of injuries that specific players suffered could have some value.
   174. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:15 PM (#2535919)
Andy, how do you propose to obtain accurate distance measurements for Bonds's home runs?

Gametapes, annotated scorebooks and newspaper accounts. I did not say that I thought that a complete log of his distances could be obtained this way. I do think that it would be worth the effort, and if the sample size were large enough it might well give us some interesting new information.

You do understand that these concepts:

1. Barry Bonds was good enough clean to lead the league in HR/AB ratio

and

2. Barry Bonds wasn't clean after 1998 and his HR/AB ratio improvement after shows it

are completely compatible.

Don't you?

After a while you do begin to wonder whether some of these people can walk and chew gum at the same time, SugarBear. And it's like every question has to be answered with 100% courtroom level certainty for the answer even to be considered at all.
   175. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:29 PM (#2535943)

No, but the preciptious drop in the number might help.

You do understand that these concepts:

1. Barry Bonds was good enough clean to lead the league in HR/AB ratio

and

2. Barry Bonds wasn't clean after 1998 and his HR/AB ratio improvement after shows it

are completely compatible.

Don't you?


No.

Tell me again how his AB/HR ratio improvement controls for all other factors and demonstrates the effects of drug use?

Between his age 27 year and his age 37 year, Hank Aaron's HR rate dropped from 17.7 per AB to 10.5 per AB. He never led the league in AB/HR until age 37. What conclusions am I supposed to draw from this precipitous drop in the ABs he needed to hit a HR in the later years of his career that are different from the conclusions I should draw from the precipitous drop in the number of ABs Bonds needed late in his career?

After a while you do begin to wonder whether some of these people can walk and chew gum at the same time, SugarBear. And it's like every question has to be answered with 100% courtroom level certainty for the answer even to be considered at all.


Not just ad hominems, but the most juvenile, kneejerk cliched versions.
   176. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2536003)
Andy, how do you propose to obtain accurate distance measurements for Bonds's home runs?


Gametapes, annotated scorebooks and newspaper accounts. I did not say that I thought that a complete log of his distances could be obtained this way. I do think that it would be worth the effort, and if the sample size were large enough it might well give us some interesting new information.


Gametapes, annotated scorebooks (?), and newspaper accounts? We might as well poll people who were at the games.

Home runs land in elevated seats, in upper decks, they are stopped by walls... They rarely land on a surface equal in elevation to home plate. Given all of the various factors involved, I don't know how accurate you think you're going to get from looking at a video tape. (I know Stats or someone gives distances, but as far as I know these are really just broad estimates, and are not taken seriously by anyone.)

Earlier in this thread you gave 15 feet (off the top of your head) as an example of a distance increase we might learn from. But I don't see how you're going to get accurate estimates to within even 50 feet, let alone 15 (or 5 or 30). Even if we know how far from home plate a particular seat is, the issue of elevation pretty much makes it an unworkable task.

And it's like every question has to be answered with 100% courtroom level certainty for the answer even to be considered at all.


Andy, this is a red herring, no matter how many times you repeat it. Nobody is demanding "100% courtroom level certainty" of anything, whatever the hell that means.
   177. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2536017)
No.

Tell me again how his AB/HR ratio improvement controls for all other factors and demonstrates the effects of drug use?

Between his age 27 year and his age 37 year, Hank Aaron's HR rate dropped from 17.7 per AB to 10.5 per AB. He never led the league in AB/HR until age 37. What conclusions am I supposed to draw from this precipitous drop in the ABs he needed to hit a HR in the later years of his career that is different from the conclusions I should draw from the precipitous drop in the number of ABs Bonds needed late in his career?


I never said anything about either of these, Darrow. They're the wispiest of straw men.

The two concepts I mentioned aren't remotely incompatible and you look silly for even implying that they are.

I (we) point out massive, fundamental inconsistencies in the ideas you posit and you respond by asking us to prove to you -- based on your standards of evidence -- things no one is claiming. Where -- anywhere -- have I ever asserted that Bonds's ratio improvement after 1998 "demonstrates" his drug use. And, more to the point, what does that have to do with the nonsense you posted about Bonds' ability to hit home runs well while clean?

No one denies that.

Do you have the slightest comprehension how clownish a person looks when they alternatively (1) say idiotic things an eighth-grader can deconstruct; (2) call those who point this out fools akin to creationists?

Aaron has precisely nothing to do with this -- and there's precisely zero evidence he used steroids -- but you're probably doctoring the numbers in an effort to draw a fraudulent parallel and are so unhinged that I'm not going to even bother looking them up. I'll simply refer you to an earlier post in which I noted not the sole ratio you (almost assuredly fraudulently) cite, but three ratios that clearly and consistently changed in Bonds's career, two of which help the case for Bonds.

The fact that I'm willing to help make the case for a naif like you should tell you all you need to know about who's committed to objectivity and who isn't.
   178. McCoy Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:52 PM (#2536019)

I have that book myself, McCoy, but I haven't started it yet. Maybe after I finish my book on the Peloponnesian War I'll give it a chance.


I've moved on to Castles of Steel. Dreadnought was very good.
   179. Babe Ruths Chris Steak Posted: September 21, 2007 at 07:53 PM (#2536022)
I've never been in these famous steriod debates before but....

1998 Barry, jealous of the Big Mac/Sosa show, devotes himself to becoming a Home Run machine. Using
1) steriods
2) weight training
3) a changed approach at the plate
4) new bat
5) jucier league ball
he hits many homers. In the process of focusing on trying to hit homers, he lays off of more balls then ever and the
6) walk-or-homer feedback loop starts

Looking back a few years later...how are we going to assign the % that steriods were responsible for?
   180. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:01 PM (#2536041)
Aaron has precisely nothing to do with this -- and there's precisely zero evidence he used steroids --


I don't see how the "zero evidence that Aaron used steroids" helps your argument. If Aaron didn't need steroids to set career highs in HR, HR/AB, and SLG at age 37, why do you conclude that Bonds _did_ need steroids?
   181. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:03 PM (#2536050)
I don't see how the "zero evidence that Aaron used steroids" helps your argument. If he didn't need steroids to set career highs in HR, HR/AB, and SLG at age 37, why do you conclude that Bonds _did_ need steroids?


Because there's no inconsitency between two ideas, not that I've ever insinuated that Bonds "needed" steroids to do anything.
   182. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2536051)
Gametapes, annotated scorebooks (?), and newspaper accounts? We might as well poll people who were at the games.

Home runs land in elevated seats, in upper decks, they are stopped by walls... They rarely land on a surface equal in elevation to home plate. Given all of the various factors involved, I don't know how accurate you think you're going to get from looking at a video tape. (I know Stats or someone gives distances, but as far as I know these are really just broad estimates, and are not taken seriously by anyone.)

Ray, if you look at tapes of the home runs he hit in any given park, and you notice that in one year the "average" home run lands ten rows further back than it did in another year, you don't need to know the precise distances of either to know that the first group was longer than the second. This sort of question is not insoluable if you have a large enough sample size---the sample size would be much more of a potential problem than the point you raise.

And it's like every question has to be answered with 100% courtroom level certainty for the answer even to be considered at all.

Andy, this is a red herring, no matter how many times you repeat it. Nobody is demanding "100% courtroom level certainty" of anything, whatever the hell that means.

Then perhaps you might explain what it would take to convince you---if anything could---that Bonds was aided by steroids and that there's a very good chance that steroids helped pad either the distance of his home runs, his home run rates, or both.

Forget "certainty." What would it take to make you think that it was (say) a 51% probability? A 75% probability? A "very good" probability? But since I'm just throwing out percentages and adjectives there, you choose a percentage or an adjective of your own.

As it stands now, it's hard not to conclude that your opinion is that nothing can ever possibly show that Bonds was juicing, and nothing can possibly show that the juicing helped him. But if this is a distortion of your views, you have all the space in the world to correct my misinterpretation. That's what this forum is for.
   183. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:20 PM (#2536077)
I don't see how the "zero evidence that Aaron used steroids" helps your argument. If Aaron didn't need steroids to set career highs in HR, HR/AB, and SLG at age 37, why do you conclude that Bonds _did_ need steroids?


It pains me to have to write this, but anyone who knows anything about baseball history knows the dramatic steps baseball took to increase offense after 1968 and that baseball expanded by 4 teams (fully 20%) in 1969. It should surprise no one that production for a guy like Hank Aaron would go up. If it went up more than the league as a whole, all that shows is that it went up more than the league as a whole. Hank Aaron was a great player (though nowhere near as good as Barry Bonds) and it shouldn't be at all surprising that he benefitted more from the changes than the league as a whole.
   184. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:24 PM (#2536085)
Ray, if you look at tapes of the home runs he hit in any given park, and you notice that in one year the "average" home run lands ten rows further back than it did in another year, you don't need to know the precise distances of either to know that the first group was longer than the second.


Each seat in a row is not the same distance from home plate, and you still need to know what the trajectory and speed of the ball was when it hit the seat in order to even begin to figure out where it was headed. Then you have different weather conditions and air patterns. You're estimating all of this from a video tape, and you think you're going to get a number that's accurate to within a few feet? You can't be serious.

Then perhaps you might explain what it would take to convince you---if anything could---that Bonds was aided by steroids and that there's a very good chance that steroids helped pad either the distance of his home runs, his home run rates, or both.


Evidence.

As it stands now, it's hard not to conclude that your opinion is that nothing can ever possibly show that Bonds was juicing, and nothing can possibly show that the juicing helped him. But if this is a distortion of your views, you have all the space in the world to correct my misinterpretation. That's what this forum is for.


That's not my view at all, but I don't know why we "have" to have an answer. Many things in life are unknowable. I manage to live a happy life anyway.
   185. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:34 PM (#2536086)
I don't see how the "zero evidence that Aaron used steroids" helps your argument. If Aaron didn't need steroids to set career highs in HR, HR/AB, and SLG at age 37, why do you conclude that Bonds _did_ need steroids?


It pains me to have to write this, but anyone who knows anything about baseball history knows the dramatic steps baseball took to increase offense after 1968 and that baseball expanded by 4 teams (fully 20%) in 1969. It should surprise no one that production for a guy like Hank Aaron would go up.


Umm... isn't that the point? Conditions change, and they can change independent of steroids. A lot of factors are involved.
   186. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:39 PM (#2536092)
It actually doesn't pain me to have to write this, but anyone who knows anything about baseball history knows the dramatic steps baseball took to increase offense after the 1994 strike, and that baseball had expanded by two teams just prior to the strike in 1993, and by two more teams in 1998. It should surprise no one that production for a guy like Barry Bonds would go up. If it went up more than the league as a whole, all that shows is that it went up more than the league as a whole. Barry Bonds was a great player (though nowhere near as good as Alex Rodriguez) and it shouldn't be at all surprising that he benefitted more from the changes than the league as a whole.

(Note that the steps taken after 1994 to increase offense may well have included a re-doubling of baseball's longtime efforts to encourage widespread PED use, in order to improve the game's entertainment value. This at a time when, thanks to technology, competition among entertainment industries was growing ever fiercer, as consumers were being presented with a slew of new choices on where to spend their leisure dollars.)
   187. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:41 PM (#2536093)
Umm... isn't that the point? League conditions change.


Yes, and in fairness to BB, they changed in his league at roughly the time of the line of demarcation (though the 1998 expansion was 7%, not 20%)

But (1) they also changed in 1993, more dramatically, and there was no meaningful and consistent production increase until the L of D; and (2) something tells me the 1998 expansion didn't make BB hit a bunch more fly balls.
   188. SugarBear Blanks Posted: September 21, 2007 at 08:55 PM (#2536105)
It actually doesn't pain me to have to write this(*), but anyone who knows anything about baseball history knows the dramatic steps baseball took to increase offense after the 1994 strike, and that baseball had expanded by two teams just prior to the strike in 1993, and by two more teams in 1998. It should surprise no one that production for a guy like Barry Bonds would go up. If it went up more than the league as a whole, all that shows is that it went up more than the league as a whole. Barry Bonds was a great player (though nowhere near as good as Alex Rodriguez) and it shouldn't be at all surprising that he benefitted more from the changes than the league as a whole.



(*) Idiots don't get to use the ironic sense when they're spewing idiocy

Your sense of humor is as lame as your insight.

Baseball didn't take dramatic steps to increase offense after '94, the expansion was nowhere near as dramatic as in 1969, and Bonds's production didn't go up after 94, it went up after 98. The rest of your paragraph is babble, and I could care less what you think of Bonds vs. Rodriguez.

The thought that baseball's efforts after 1994 included a "redoubling of [its] longtime efforts to encourage widespread PED use" borders on delusional(**) and I'm probably being unfair to the term "borders on" by using it here.

**If the amped up guys were "entertaining" fans with their drugged-up exploits in the days of House and Bouton, you sure could have fooled all the empty seats that showed up to see them.
   189. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 21, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2536116)
Ray, if you look at tapes of the home runs he hit in any given park, and you notice that in one year the "average" home run lands ten rows further back than it did in another year, you don't need to know the precise distances of either to know that the first group was longer than the second.

Each seat in a row is not the same distance from home plate, and you still need to know what the trajectory and speed of the ball was when it hit the seat in order to even begin to figure out where it was headed. Then you have different weather conditions and air patterns. You're estimating all of this from a video tape, and you think you're going to get a number that's accurate to within a few feet? You can't be serious.

Of course every seat in a row is not the same distance from home plate. As if I didn't know that, or wouldn't factor that in.

There are also weather reports and wind reports to be found in every box score.

And the trajectory can certainly be estimated from a tape.

Again, the biggest problem would be sample size, and the number of available tapes. Not to mention the immense amount of labor for such an undertaking, which alone would likely be a deterrent.

Then perhaps you might explain what it would take to convince you---if anything could---that Bonds was aided by steroids and that there's a very good chance that steroids helped pad either the distance of his home runs, his home run rates, or both.

Evidence.

I see you've managed to shrink the fifth amendment to one word. What sort of evidence?

As it stands now, it's hard not to conclude that your opinion is that nothing can ever possibly show that Bonds was juicing, and nothing can possibly show that the juicing helped him. But if this is a distortion of your views, you have all the space in the world to correct my misinterpretation. That's what this forum is for.

That's not my view at all, but I don't know why we "have" to have an answer. Many things in life are unknowable. I manage to live a happy life anyway.

IOW nothing could convince you. Fair enough. End of discussion.
   190. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: September 21, 2007 at 09:43 PM (#2536134)
link
September 21, 2007

Dear Fans,

This journal will be one of my last entries as a San Francisco Giant. Yesterday, I was told by the Giants that they will not be bringing me back for the 2008 season. During the conversation with Peter McGowan I was told that my play this year far exceeded any expectations the Giants had, but that the organization decided this year would be my last season in San Francisco. Although I am disappointed, I've always said baseball is a business -- and I respect their decision. However, I am saddened and upset that I was not given an earlier opportunity to properly say goodbye to you, my fans, and celebrate with the city throughout the season as I truly believe this was not a last minute decision by the Giants, but one that was made some time ago. I don't have nor do I want any ill feelings towards the organization, I just wish I had known sooner so we had more time to say our goodbyes and celebrate the best 15 years of my life.

I consider the City of San Francisco and you, the fans, my family. Thank you for loving me and supporting me throughout all the highs and lows. I feel a deep connection with you as I have grown up with all of you since the days my dad first became a Giant. The Bay Area has loved my family and friends for so many years and I thank you for that. It is now a time for change, as many athletes have experienced. It is comforting to know that those who have come before me -- Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, to name a few -- have forever remained in the hearts of the fans, as I know I will too.

During my career as a Giant, so many people made significant impressions on my life. I'd like to thank all my past and current teammates. I've had the opportunity to play with some amazingly talented ballplayers who have treated me with respect, supported me and rooted for me throughout the years. Mike Murphy, our devoted Equipment Manager, used to baby-sit me as a little boy at Candlestick Park. There are no words to describe the love and respect I have for him. Mike Krukow and Duane Kuiper are the two best broadcasters in the business. Their professionalism, integrity and love for the game, puts them in a league of their own. I thank them for their support and I'm honored to call them friends. It is also important to thank all the men and women behind the scenes at the stadium who come to work every day and make it possible for us all to enjoy a day at the ballpark. I love walking to clubhouse hearing their "hellos" every day.

I would have loved nothing more than to retire as a Giant in the place where I call home and have shared so many momentous moments with all of you, but there is more baseball in me and I plan on continuing my career. My quest for a World Series ring continues.

Until next time,

Barry Bonds
   191. Chip Posted: September 21, 2007 at 09:48 PM (#2536136)
What is this, Blowhard Self-Parody Day? We're now dictating who gets to use irony?

Guess it must have hit pretty close to the bone.
   192. RayDiPerna Posted: September 21, 2007 at 10:19 PM (#2536201)
Of course every seat in a row is not the same distance from home plate. As if I didn't know that, or wouldn't factor that in.

There are also weather reports and wind reports to be found in every box score.


There are "wind reports" that tell us that the wind was blowing in from right during the 3rd inning, and then died down in the 7th inning before picking up again in the 9th? Huh.

And the trajectory can certainly be estimated from a tape.

Again, the biggest problem would be sample size, and the number of available tapes.


No. The biggest problem would be that the estimates would not be nearly accurate enough to be useful.

That's not my view at all, but I don't know why we "have" to have an answer. Many things in life are unknowable. I manage to live a happy life anyway.


IOW nothing could convince you.


Well, that's mature.

The point is that I see no need to pretend we have an answer when we don't.
   193. AROM Posted: September 21, 2007 at 10:27 PM (#2536232)
Home runs land in elevated seats, in upper decks, they are stopped by walls... They rarely land on a surface equal in elevation to home plate. Given all of the various factors involved, I don't know how accurate you think you're going to get from looking at a video tape.


Check out hittracker. Greg has made the excel program that calculates the distances available for download. It may not be perfect, but it should at least be consistent, if there is a big jump in Barry's HR distance, we would see it with hittracker.

The obstacle is getting the videotape from so many old games.
   194. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: September 21, 2007 at 10:48 PM (#2536315)
I don't know why we "have" to have an answer. Many things in life are unknowable.

I actually agree with this, and frankly, can't believe that anyone would disagree with it. But I don't see why you're getting this worked up if that's the entirety of your point.
   195. CrosbyBird Posted: September 21, 2007 at 11:56 PM (#2536611)
Then perhaps you might explain what it would take to convince you---if anything could---that Bonds was aided by steroids and that there's a very good chance that steroids helped pad either the distance of his home runs, his home run rates, or both.

I already believe that Bonds "more likely than not" took something, and that such something "more likely than not" assisted him in some way.

Very good chance and very good chance, and specifically those areas? I can't put an exact number on it but that strong language has to be in the 85-90% range at a minimum.

For that, it would probably take a scientific study that could somehow isolate the effects of steroid use on HR distance or on bat speed without simply dismissing other potential factors outright or making up percentage increases that are scientifically supportable. Or, in the alternative, a scientifically supportable measure of Bonds' HR distances that shows a correlation with a known (as in, documented) doping schedule.

That's a particularly tough standard, I recognize, but you're asking for a considerable degree of certainty.

The level of uncertainty that exists in my opinion regarding whether Bonds used something (small, but nonzero), whether Bonds got an advantage (again, small but nonzero), that such an advantage was significant in comparison to other offense increasing factors (larger than either of the previous two), and that it specifically was bat speed and/or home run distance, that's where I start to get very uncomfortable making definitive statements.

I'm still not going to feel cheated if Bonds used nor feel he should be left out of the HOF -- this is not a moral issue as far as I'm concerned, but a health and competitive balance issue. I'm fine with MLB and the MLBPA hashing out consequences of their own and a testing regimen through collective bargaining. I feel fairly strongly than any changes need be set up in such a way as to avoid any retroactive punishment.
   196. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot Posted: September 22, 2007 at 12:05 AM (#2536664)
Thanks, CBird. We've gone over the HOF question and it doesn't need another rehashing until the next voting season, but the rest of what you're saying was what I was trying to find out. And since you took the time to reply I'll let you have the last word on it. We all know that this subject isn't going away anytime soon.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
James Kannengieser
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Newsblog: Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0?
(5 - 2:06pm, Feb 10)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

Newsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault
(6008 - 2:06pm, Feb 10)
Last: Perros

Newsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s
(286 - 2:06pm, Feb 10)
Last: SouthSideRyan

Newsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012
(397 - 2:04pm, Feb 10)
Last: Moses Taylor demands to be housewarmed

Newsblog: Guelph Mercury: Argos will likely be turfed out of Rogers if Jays get grass
(22 - 2:04pm, Feb 10)
Last: Master Procrastinator

Newsblog: The SnakePit Interview: Diamondbacks GM Kevin Towers, Part 1
(2 - 2:03pm, Feb 10)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against Elroy Face?

Newsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind
(16 - 2:02pm, Feb 10)
Last: Something Other

Transaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's
(38 - 2:00pm, Feb 10)
Last: jfish26101

Newsblog: Bluetales blog: JetBlue’s 605 Wears Red Sox Colors!
(3 - 1:55pm, Feb 10)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Newsblog: Rosenthal: Swapping Figgins for Ichiro at leadoff could revive Mariners' offense
(20 - 1:50pm, Feb 10)
Last: Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vest

Newsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans
(32 - 1:48pm, Feb 10)
Last: Rants Mulliniks (formerly Cold Prosimian)

Newsblog: Nightengale: Jeff Suppan leaves restaurant business to sign with Padres
(1 - 1:45pm, Feb 10)
Last: Tricky Dick

Newsblog: Tom Brady getting new bro-in-law: Red Sox’ Kevin Youkilis!
(14 - 1:42pm, Feb 10)
Last: Nasty Nate

Newsblog: L.A. Times: 11 bidders remain in running to buy Dodgers
(24 - 1:41pm, Feb 10)
Last: Tuque

Newsblog: YES Commemorates 10th Anniversary with Special Logo, Programming
(12 - 1:33pm, Feb 10)
Last: Gamingboy
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2012 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising

Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets.

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets.

Page rendered in 2.6348 seconds
40 querie(s) executed