And as was discussed on RSBB extensively at the time, there were a number of other things going on. First - steroids or not, players were spending much more time in the weight room, which presumably would have some effect anyway. Bats had changed - handles were being made slimmer, a scoop taken out of the end, to put more of the mass in the sweet spot. For years basically every ballpark change favored the hitter. There were questions about the composition of the yarn in baseballs. Less shame was held by hitters for striking out, which had the effect for some of swinging freely with two strikes. I'm sure I'm forgetting other points discussed at the time.

All of these would tend to increase home runs, at least for some players. The increased working out would balance out somewhat with pitchers also being in better shape, and the increasing expansion of the bullpen presumably would have an effect also. But with a number of changes occurring in a relatively small point in time, it shouldn't be a shock that the number of outliers increased both for hitters and for pitchers (seen in some incredible ERA+s).

Tour de force demolition of the anti-anti-steroid argument by Verducci. Even McGwire knows he cheated by roiding, so much so that he doesn't even think he has a case to plead in opposition.

But what does he know, as against the lawyers and the spreadsheets ....?

Tom Verducci to PED users: "Don't get caught!"

“I was a full blown cheater and I knew it,” Naulty said. “You didn’t need a written rule. I was violating clear principals that were laid down within the rules. Whether they were explicitly stated that I shouldn’t use speed or testosterone didn’t need to be stated. I understood I was violating mainly implicit principals.

Do you think Naulty spelled the word "principles" wrong when he was saying it?

EDIT: (Answer: no: Verducci is just so incompetent that he can't even cut-and-paste.)

EDIT 2: Coke to Howie.

EDIT 3: Incidentally, Verducci is patting himself on the back for "profiling" Naulty, but Naulty had said the same things five years earlier to the Daily News.

EDIT 4: We made fun of Verducci's "logic" last time around, too. Glad to see he's recycling the same article.

Esoteric: assuming everything you say in #25, what was the point of your post #1, then?

Tom Verducci to PED users: "Don't get caught!"

That's a pretty good rule to follow actually. If you are going to do something illegal or shady, that should be your first order of business.

Yes it is odd, but steroid use isn't the only obvious answer.

But it is an answer. Please let's not do another round of 'steroids don't really help you hit a baseball' lunacy.

Right, until the next time that you pull the "dishonest" gun out of your everready holster.

For the record, I don't personally think the anti-PED contingent is necessarily dishonest. I just think they're stupid on this issue. Totes diff.

For the record, I don't personally think the anti-PED contingent is necessarily dishonest. I just think they're stupid on this issue. Totes diff.

Well, the choices, given the cartoonish steroids vs. amps/spitballs arguments they make, are between stupid and dishonest. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not idiots.

For the record, I don't personally think the anti-PED contingent is necessarily dishonest. I just think they're stupid on this issue.

Yes, exactly.

On the MLB Network show last night with Costas and Verducci and a few others, the general consensus of the anti-steroids crusaders was that amps weren't really relevant because steroids were much more effective.

Even if that's true - it's quite debatable - the position is retarded, because it basically boils down to excusing one set of players and penalizing another simply because the latter set had better drugs.

So, just use shitty versions of steroids and you're ok?

I think stupid and dishonest are both really unnecessarily harsh. I think it's just a conclusion-first thing, where they first decide that steroids are bad and then have to come up with the reasons why.

6 of the 8 seasons of 60+ HRs occurred in this four year span seems statistically odd, no?

Yes it is odd, but steroid use isn't the only an obvious answer.

Do people think steroids were only used in that four-year span? So why would steroids be a likely explanation for that phenomenon?

I think stupid and dishonest are both really unnecessarily harsh. I think it's just a conclusion-first thing, where they first decide that steroids are bad and then have to come up with the reasons why.

I believe that process would be appropriately labelled stupid and dishonest.

Well, the choices, given the cartoonish steroids vs. amps/spitballs arguments they make, are between stupid and dishonest. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they're not idiots.

They're not idiots either. They're stupid on this issue. For some complex of reasons, they have taken a morally absolutist stand on the issue of "unnatural enhancement" of baseball players in the 1990s. I think they fail to think through the question with any rigor, but I don't think this means their idiots. Idiots are incapable of thinking through any issue. Kehoskie, for example. Esoteric isn't an idiot. He's just painfully wrong on this issue.

Robert,
Does it concern you that many players used steroids and do not show an increase in performance?

I think stupid and dishonest are both really unnecessarily harsh. I think it's just a conclusion-first thing, where they first decide that steroids are bad and then have to come up with the reasons why.

How would that not fit stupid and dishonest?

EDIT: Coke to David.

6 of the 8 seasons of 60+ HRs occurred in this four year span seems statistically odd, no?

It certainly is. All six of those seasons were had by three players, as well. So you had a concatenation of events- 1) the most power / home run friendly context in the history of professional baseball, 2) two all-time great power hitters and one damn good one peaking at the right time, 3) growing understanding of the utility of weight-training for playing baseball, and in particular for power hitting, 4) growing understanding of the utility of performance enhancing drugs for playing baseball.

I think the main issues were (1) and (2). (3) and (4) are factors in (1), but not the primary factors.

Along with expansion, smaller parks, and some reports of a juiced up ball. I'm not sure why we wouldn't have expected home runs to peak.

Expansion and smaller parks have remained and we haven't seen further 60 HR seasons. Don't see how that's a variable.

Juiced ball is a potential explanation.

Understand that we should question whether the assumed impact of steroids = Bonds/Sosa/McGwire reaching 60+ HR totals (and crazy HR/AB rates for years where Bonds had 200 walks) vs. 40-50 HR totals is true. But do people here really believe that steroids isn't responsible for at least 50% of this delta?

How would that not fit stupid and dishonest?

It's not dishonest because it's a genuine belief (of course it can lead people to make dishonest arguments, but anything can). Maybe it is stupid, but that kind of thing happens to everyone and it certainly doesn't make you a stupid person.

Wonderful article, cogent and clear. I endorse every word.

Expansion and smaller parks have remained

Well, as we move away from expansion, the effects will be diminishing. And I think we've seen a turn back towards pitcher's parks recently.

Wow. I'm not a regular here, I don't know much about historical relationships among the posters (though this reminds me of Bosnia and Serbia)

but this jumped out at me. Goose, meet gander.

Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 12:32 PM (#4342867)
I'm not sure what your opinion is worth, Esoteric, if you won't stick around to support it.

Ray (RDP) Posted: January 09, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4342901)
Esoteric, I'm not going to respond to that.

I guess what gets me about the BBWAA majority is stuff like "I'll never vote for a known steroids user," followed by a failure to vote for Bagwell and Piazza.

Not to mention that many of these guys have covered/do cover NFL football, where steroids suspensions are usually followed by a vote to the Pro Bowl team.

I think stupid and dishonest are both really unnecessarily harsh. I think it's just a conclusion-first thing

I think any argumentation that is developed by putting the conclusion first and reasoning backwards is stupid, by definition.

(Do you have any idea how much it pains me to be lining up with Ray and David in public?!)

Expansion and smaller parks have remained and we haven't seen further 60 HR seasons. Don't see how that's a variable.

IIRC, since the late '90s virtually all ball park changes have favored pitchers. Dodger Stadium's decreased foul ground is one of the few changes to favor the hitter. But there have been a number of changes - not least, the Rockies infamous humidor, that decrease offense.

(Do you have any idea how much it pains me to be lining up with Ray and David in public?!)

Not as much as it pains us?

(Do you have any idea how much it pains me to be lining up with Ray and David in public?!)

Do you have any idea how much it pains other members to read the congratulatory circle jerk you, Dave, and Ray just completed while demonstrating exactly why esoteric doesn't want to discuss the issue with you?

IIRC, since the late '90s virtually all ball park changes have favored pitchers. Dodger Stadium's decreased foul ground is one of the few changes to favor the hitter. But there have been a number of changes - not least, the Rockies infamous humidor, that decrease offense.

Really? Besides the humidor, what else was there?

The spike in HR is most obviously tied to events on the field.

Look, the first HR spike in the 1990s occurred, when? 1993-1994. What happened in 1993? Expansion.

The peak of HR hitting occurred when? 1998-2001. What happened in 1998? Expansion.

Expansion gives 25 replacement level pitchers jobs. Dan Rosenheck's research for the HOM suggests that the expansion hangover can last 5+ years. Perhaps even more in an era when MLB is competing more hotly for young talent with the NFL and NBA. So MLB expands, and offense goes way up. Then MLB expands just before the talent pool catches up, and WHAMMO! offense goes up even more.

To me, this is the most sound explanation for both the HR spikes of the 1990s (and the batting average spikes), and one that at least has some research behind it. And could have further research if we wanted to examine where players were coming from.

Well, as we move away from expansion, the effects will be diminishing.

Agreed. There's a distinct difference between finding 12 starters and 40 relievers, from scratch, in 1993, and having two fully functional, 20 year old farm systems drafting and developing those players in 2013.

And I think we've seen a turn back towards pitcher's parks recently.

Parks opening from 1991-1996:

US Cellular (New Comiskey) 1991
Oriole Park @ Camden Yard 1992
Mile High Stadium/Coors Field 1993/1995
Progressive Field (Jacobs Field) 1994
The Ballpark @ Arlington 1994
Turner Field 1996

The only park in that list that was less hitter friendly than the park it replaced was Turner Field, a neutral park that replaced "The Launching Pad" of Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium. The rest were offense producing environments.

Parks opening from 1997-2001:

Tropicana Field (debuted with the Rays in 1998)
Chase Field/the BOB 1998
Safeco Field 1999
AT&T Park 2000
Comerica 2000
MinuteMaid/Enron 2000
PNC Park 2001
Miller Park 2001

Two of those are offense creating parks - Enron/MM and Chase/BOB. Maybe Miller. Three are run reducing environments: Trop, Safeco and Comerica. AT&T isn't notably different from Candlestick, that I know.

To Shredder re No. 12: Matt's father owns that bar. He was one of my coaches many years ago. I've known Matt since he was 5. He's a perfect example of the middle relievers who weren't going to make the bigs on their own, but carved a niche with pharmaceuticals. I'm glad he has spoken out about it.

Really? Besides the humidor, what else was there?

#80 answered it nicely.

I remember seeing analyses of the offensive explosion of the early mid '90s, where a significant percentage in the NL could be attributed to playing in Denver alone. Since then it has come back to Earth (so to speak) with the use of the humidor.

But as I said, in the '90s a number of factors were being pointed to as leading to offensive increases - now many are claiming it was solely due to steroids, and that doesn't seem to match up with what actually happened. Especially since pitchers could use steroids too.

Eric's point @79 is well made too. I think attempting to explain HR spikes that coincide with expansion years by nebulous theories of PED usage fails the most basic logical tests. I'll also note that the three players to hit 60+ HRs were all NL sluggers, which means they got the benefit of playing in the new offensive parks (Coors, Chase, Enron) and avoided the new defensive fields (Safeco, Trop, Comerica.)

And no Piazza either. This despite him going on at length during MLB Network's roundtable as to how he couldn't withhold a vote for a player on suspicion alone.

I think the anti-roid zealots, like to say they wouldn't base a vote on suspicion alone, but if they have suspicion, they will create other reasons to withhold a vote... In Piazza's case "poor defense" in Sosa's(and Bagwell for others) case "not enough career"...etc...

Basically Bonds and Clemens are the only two players who are a lock by their careers, and fortunately they have enough public knowledge on their usage* that it's easy to blackball them. All the other players if you have suspicion, you can create a different reason to keep them out.

*It doesn't matter whether they have been exonerated or not.

The increased working out would balance out somewhat with pitchers also being in better shape

I think one big HR factor was that the juiced pitchers and their increased MPH resulted in my Ks and more HR. The faster the pitch, the faster it comes off the bat. So its additive, rather than balanced.

#80 answered it nicely.

He didn't include the Reds' and Phillies' new parks because he was only looking a '97-'01.

Tweet from Neil Best;

"Maybe we sportswriters should have recused ourselves from '13 Hall of Fame voting in penance for blowing coverage of Steroids Era for years."

First good tweet of the year(if not history) by a sports writer.

Pitcher Matt Herges, who said steroids made him “superhuman . . . an android, basically,”

Personal perception isn't a fact. Statistically it's been proven there is no such thing as the "hot hand" in basketball, yet people will claim that they feel like they just couldn't miss(even if they go 20 for 25). Amp users have claimed they can see better and that the world is going in slow motion. Corked bat users claim they can hit the ball farther(even though physics says that is incorrect)

I understand people have a tendency to take personal testimonies as gospel when it supports their already made conclusions, and ignore all the other evidence, but it's still a rather weak argument to bring to the table.

Expansion and smaller parks have remained and we haven't seen further 60 HR seasons. Don't see how that's a variable.

Juiced ball is a potential explanation.

Expansion doesn't remain, eventually the talent catches up to expansion.
Another point is that the bats have changed, got smaller and lighter and maple. Which led to a lot of splintered bats and now they have set up new standards for bats. (only recently, coinciding with testing) (I see this was addressed rather well in following posts)

Especially since pitchers could use steroids too.

I imagine that pitchers using roids, would help the homerun explosion, assuming that roids helped pitchers throw harder. A harder thrown ball met squarely is going to have more distance than a slower pitch.

A harder thrown ball met squarely is going to have more distance than a slower pitch.

How true is this (I'm sincerely asking)? It's not like slow pitch softball or hitting off a tee prevents guys from being able to crush a ball. Even if it is a significant difference, doesn't the increased speed create fewer squarely hit balls, meaning fewer homers? I'd think that would greatly outweigh any benefit you'd see from hitting a harder thrown pitch.

Expansion gives 25 replacement level pitchers jobs. Dan Rosenheck's research for the HOM suggests that the expansion hangover can last 5+ years. Perhaps even more in an era when MLB is competing more hotly for young talent with the NFL and NBA. So MLB expands, and offense goes way up. Then MLB expands just before the talent pool catches up, and WHAMMO! offense goes up even more.
To me, this is the most sound explanation for both the HR spikes of the 1990s (and the batting average spikes), and one that at least has some research behind it. And could have further research if we wanted to examine where players were coming from.

The increase in HR hitting in 1993-94 had nothing at all to do with expansion. This has been well-researched. For example, if you look at pitchers who pitched before and after the HR explosion, their HR-allowed went up just as much as the league as a whole. I can't believe the staying power of this ridiculous myth......

A harder thrown ball met squarely is going to have more distance than a slower pitch.

True, but less balls are met squarely when the pitches are faster.

One of the big advantages of steroids for pitchers (afaict) is that it allows pitchers to recover better between appearances. Which may result in better velocity, but also may show up as better command and control of pitches.

He didn't include the Reds' and Phillies' new parks because he was only looking a '97-'01.

I was keeping my point to "the 90s" more or less. The notable spikes in HR/G occur in 1993 and 1998. Those are both expansion years, and while you can trot out correlation vs causation if you like, it's a better logical case than something like "steroids weren't good in 1992, but they were in 1993, and then they got better in 1998 or something."

Sportswriters that interview players for a living voting on the same players for the HOF - and then becoming the subject of interviews themselves.

It's like watching all the crappy DC Sunday talk shows.

Yeah, Bob, the writers now are the news, rather than the players. The Hall of Fame voting is now... about the writers! Congratulations!

I was keeping my point to "the 90s" more or less. The notable spikes in HR/G occur in 1993 and 1998. Those are both expansion years, and while you can trot out correlation vs causation if you like, it's a better logical case than something like "steroids weren't good in 1992, but they were in 1993, and then they got better in 1998 or something."

These aren't the only choices. We know that expansion had zero impact. We don't know how much impact steroids had, though probably about the same.

True, but less balls are met squarely when the pitches are faster.

The increase in strikeouts indicates that is true also. There were more strikeouts, more homeruns during those eras, partially explained by an emerging acceptance of strikeouts as the natural result of obp and power, and arguably partially explained by increase velocity/difficulty to hit pitches.

The increase in HR hitting in 1993-94 had nothing at all to do with expansion. This has been well-researched. For example, if you look at pitchers who pitched before and after the HR explosion, their HR-allowed went up just as much as the league as a whole. I can't believe the staying power of this ridiculous myth......

I've never seen this before, and it really doesn't matter that much about the individual pitchers anyways.

it really doesn't matter that much about the individual pitchers anyways

say what?

Yeah, Bob, the writers now are the news, rather than the players. The Hall of Fame voting is now... about the writers! Congratulations!

This isn't a new thing which is why BBTF as a community sometimes looks like a bunch of suckers by obsessing about HOF and awards voting....

This isn't a new thing which is why BBTF as a community sometimes looks like a bunch of suckers by obsessing about HOF and awards voting....

The subtitle of the book was "The Politics Of Glory," for god's sake. It's nothing new.