Did steroids really change baseball?

Yes, Luis Gonzalez had that latent power that he happened to use all in one year. His HR totals:

15, 10, 23, 26, 31, <b>57</b>, 28, 26, 17, 24, 15, 15.

 

As I said before, guys like that and Brady Anderson prove my point.

If steroids made them hit so many HRs, why didn't they keep hitting them?

 

Also, I guess Joe Mauer was on steroids last year.

 

Mauer didn't hit 50 or more home runs. He hit 28 (though it was after missing a month). And he was 26 years old when he did it, young enough for a legitimate power spike. We still haven't seen nearly enough of his career to see how that fits in and there are at least two good reasons that his power production has gone down this year -- a series of minor injuries that have had an impact on his overall level of play and the move to a much tougher hitter's park.

Take all of that away and your comparison might have some merit to it.

 

Because the side effects of steroids can scare the shit out of people.

 

The league expanded in 1993.

 

Mauer is at an age and a point in his career where a jump in power numbers is more easily explained. Gonzalez was 33 when he suddenly hit 57, a level he hadn't come close to before in his career, nor he did he approach it after that season.

 

That's a common misconception. In fact, I would have thought the same thing just a few days ago, but this guys' research showed that the overall scoring numbers in the years just before and just after each previous expansion were basically flat. Same with the 98 expansion.

http://highboskage.com/juiced-ball.shtml#EXPANSION

The only other expansion that had a big offensive jump was 1977, which also had a new ball.

Besides, shouldn't there be just as much dilution of hitting as pitching? And if there was some inability of the world population to fill up an extra 50 major league spots in 1993, don't you think the world would have caught up? It never did. The offense rose immediately in 1993 and stayed at that level to the present day.

 

Steroids don't help you hit home runs. Saying "steroids helped home run numbers" is incorrect statement and one we as journalists should refrain from ever saying again.
Steroids help you recover quicker when you're working out a ton, which makes you stronger. If you take steroids and don't work out, you're not going to get stronger.

 

And getting stronger allows you to hit more home runs. Exactly why is that so difficult for some people to understand?

 

Help is transitive. If A helps you do B, and B helps you do C, then A helps you do C.

 

I'm not disputing that. I'm only disputing the degree. The "how many more home runs" question.

Based on the fact that home run totals went up very quickly -- did everyone start using steroids the same year? -- and the fact that they have been sustained even past steroid testing, I'm skeptical that steroids are the dominant reason for the increase in homers.

I suppose I'm just repeating myself now.