Did steroids really change baseball?

completely agree

 

A fine point, sir.

 

The reason you don't have to is because, if you saw my earlier point, HRs now haven't been reduced since 93/94.

We wanna believe they have because those 3 people who were hitting 60 are gone, but across the board, HRs jumped in 93/94 and they've been steady ever since.

 

No they haven't. A drop from 1.17 to 1.00 per game is 826 home runs per year, overall, across baseball.

 

Nefi Perez

 

We can debate this forever but no one is ever going to be able to prove that steroids cause home runs.

 

The 2005-2009 average was about 0.1 per game lower than the previous five-year span. Not as big as the 93-94 jump, but still significant.

 

And 06 was higher than 02. Single year variations are not as significant.

That 93/94 jump was huge, and sustained. That's tough to explain.

 

It's not that they " cause" homeruns, they allow you to recover faster, increase strength and countless other little advantages, which in turn would allow you to be a better player.

It's ridiculous to say steroids don't help, it's also ridiculous to say they turn a player into a stud. You have to have a hell of a lot of talent to start with

 

Exactly. Steroids can't turn a stiff into a superstar, but they can make a good player into a great one. Anybody who can't understand the benefit of getting stronger and gaining an increased ability to recover is just ingorant, willfully or otherwise.

 

More strength is better. I agree with that. Abso-freakin-lutely.

I'm simply talking about degrees. Because it impossible to know...

a) how much added strength is attributed to steroids and how much to working out and
b) how much added muscle in various parts of the body translates into added bat speed...

I choose to believe that the impact of steroids is impossible to know, and that most likely the conventional wisdom over-rates that impact.

That's all.