Comments on: What Caused the “Steroid” Era?

By: adam block

adam block — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:24:02 +0000

There are a number of contributing factors to baseball’s Steroids Era. I discuss them in my undergraduate thesis called baseball’s dark cloud.

http://www.economics.emory.edu/Working_Papers/wp/Block.pdf

By: Giri Guevara

Giri Guevara — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:35:41 +0000

Can you do one for International Cricket please. Number of runs scored in One Day Internationals or Test Matches

By: James

James — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:02:02 +0000

A couple of points I want to make in case you had not considered.

1.) Does the “expansion” argument take into consideration the rise of foreign players as well. I saw one study that showed the number of Dominican players doubled in the Major Leagues between 1992 and 2005. Also the Asian-born players began to play more and more in the Major Leagues. This could offset the “dillution” of talent.

2.) Baseball seems to be a tightly knit fraternity. players know each other so it wouldn’t be surprising if the “steroid bug” spread quickly among them. They would need a catalyst though, and it may have come in 1990 when a virtual unknown (Cecil Fielder) made waves by hitting 50+ home runs, and was eventually rewarded with a hefty contract. Coupled with the fact that Canseco (already probably juicing) was awarded the highest contract in 1991 may have started the ‘roid trend.

3. The “live ball” theory was used to explain the 1987 season where there was an abnormal spike in home runs (McGwire hit 49 that year). This theory was proposed again during the 1990s, I read a news article then that stated that MLB baseballs were only made in two factories, one in the Dominican Republic I believe. The owners swore they were not “jucing” the ball. I don’t know if that is accurate or not, but I think it has been looked into.

4.) Expansion could explain for part of it. The previous expansion year (1977) did see one 50 home run hitter, George Foster, (the only one between Willie Mays’s 52 home run year in 1965 and Fielder’s 1990 season) but it was in the NL not the AL. Only the AL expanded that year so Foster did not hit any expansion pitching.

Home runs per game increased in both league in 1977 at the same rate, then the year after expansion the NL rate dropped to .65 per game (from roughly .84) and the AL rate dropped to .74.

Anyway it may be a combination of expansion and steroids, though I don’t know that expansion had that much of an effect on the game, given that the last expansion year did not produce a significant amount of home run hitters.

By: Michae lCoughlin

Michae lCoughlin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:16:22 +0000

Obviously all things are a combination of factors, but I think there could be an argument that it’s steroids and the rise of sabremetrically inclined front offices. Perhaps steroids were introduced and that explains the quick rise. MLB cracks down on ‘roid use. This should have depressed homerun totals, but it also happened along at the same time GMs – like Beane most famously – began to radically look at stats from a different, and IMO more correct, perspective. Had GMs been stuck in their old ways of thinking, relying more on imperfect stats like batting average and wins, maybe there would have been a drastic drop in homeruns. In other words, perhaps steroids “artificially” sped up a process that would eventually have arrived. Had we had a longer period of “smarter GMs” with steroids, maybe THOSE numbers would have been impossible to maintain and we’d see a drop. Kind of a “stupid” GM + steroids = smart GM without steroids.

While the lack of steroids has seemed to depress the upper level of homerun totals (no one’s hitting 60 let alone 73) the smarter GMs, emphasizing OBP and SLG, have increased the output of the lower level of homeruns (spots in the order that would have once been hitting 10 homeruns because “stupid GMs” overlooked certain players are now hitting 15).

By: clayborne

clayborne — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:04:13 +0000

That expansion effect should be fairly easily tested. Did 1993 and 1998 show increases in line with the increased proportion of at-bats facing players who previously would not have been in the MLB?

Looking at the graph, there is a big jump from 1992 to 1993, as would be expected from an expansion in 1993. However, there is a similar jump from 1993 to 1994 – a year after the expansion — while the expansion should just be a one-time structural break. Also, there is only a small increase from 1997 to 1998, which would not be expected if expansion is the cause. Two-teams worth of inferior players were in place in 1998, while there’s a big jump from 1998 to 1999.

On the steroid issue, you’re talking about a diffusion rate of a technology in a population. You assume that it would be slow, which might match a diffusion in the general population. However, MLB is a small and close community, where workout routines could easily diffuse quickly. Further, the people who train MLB athletes is an even smaller community.

Another test that would be interesting here is one you allude to: did HRs/SLG% increase across the entire league, or did it only increase in a subset of players? If the former, that suggests expansion. If the latter, it suggests steroid use.

By: Tweets that mention What Caused the “Steroid” Era? -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention What Caused the “Steroid” Era? -- Topsy.com — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:50:17 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by J.C. Bradbury, Capitol Avenue Club. Capitol Avenue Club said: Required Reading from @JC_Bradbury – What Caused the "Steroid" Era? | Sabernomics — http://bit.ly/9HyjTM [...]

By: Devon

Devon — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:30:23 +0000

This’ll have my noodle cooking for a while. Love this kind of stuff.

By: The Oriole Way

The Oriole Way — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:06:44 +0000

I think it would be helpful to highlight all years in which MLB expanded on your first graph.

By: Millsy

Millsy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:34:40 +0000

Ron,

I’ve read (not necessarily from reputable sources) information regarding the idea that certain steroids can improve sight and hand-eye coordination. Don’t ask me to cite that though.

As for the ‘bulking up’ getting in the way of a swing, I’ve seen others report this is a myth (again, this is just casual reading and searching around). Of course, that’s if you’re doing the right exercises and maintaining flexibility. The interaction of strength training improvements, understanding of flexibility, and using steroids could (I’ll bet) result in a net positive effect on hitting.

By: Ron Elstun

Ron Elstun — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:15:54 +0000

I love the research – one area that you may also consider is the use of contact lens. I see hitting as a matter of seeing the ball and hitting what you see. I remember one day when my son was playing ball in high school and went on hitting streak and he said, “I am seeing the ball so well right now.” You often hear hitters comment on the ball looking as big as a softball when they are on a hitting streak.
I have thought for a long time that steroids would not help, but would hinder the swing of an athlete as they bulk up. And I have never heard anyone say that steroids helps the eye-hand coordination. You have to see the ball very well to hit a lot of home runs.

May be the ball players are eating more carrots these days….?