As noted earlier here, objective research does not support the current conventional wisdom that widespread steroid use in Major League Baseball is largely responsible for the home run records that were set over the past decade. Nevertheless, while continuing to ignore or refine such research, Major League Baseball announced yesterday that former U.S. Senator George Mitchell will lead an investigation into alleged steroid use by Barry Bonds and other players.
The Chronicle’s Richard Justice thinks that the investigation will put primarily Bonds in the crosshairs of investigators, but I’m not as sure that Bonds will end up being the only icon tarnished by the investigation. For quite some time now, some pundits on the steroid issue have alleged that the Stros and star slugger Jeff Bagwell were at the center of the steroid use in Major League Baseball and that Bagwell was even indirectly involved in Bonds’ decision to take steroids. Accordingly, don’t be surprised if the investigation implicates Bags and other Stros.
Given the conclusions to which generally uninformed people jump in regard to steroid use, it will be unfortunate if Bags’ reputation is dragged through the mud in this process. Just remember that steroids did not make him the greatest slugger in Stros history or Bonds one of the greatest sluggers in Major League Baseball history.
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
It’s still really, really hard to hit 700 home runs, no matter what you take or how hard you train.
Are steroids hunky-dory if we can show that there’s no proven link between use and homeruns? Should we stop worrying about them completely? I am actually conflicted about this — I hate the thought of steroids in the game (play like a man, dammit), but if, as you say, there’s no connection between steroids and increased performance, what’s the big deal? But at the same time, why would players take the risk of using steroids if they don’t enhance performance? I don’t know that the stats are telling the whole story here.
Especially when you look at Sosa, McGwire and Bonds all clustered within a couple of steroid-filled years — can it really be explained away by Paretian distribution charts?
Rich, my sense is that steroid use probably helped Bonds and McGwire recover more quickly and, thus, probably facilitated their records. However, did steroids help those players as much as illegal amphetamines helped Pete Rose and others set records in earlier eras? And how does MLB rationalize its liberal use of cortisone and other pain relieving drugs so that players can play despite injuries, on one hand, and its condemnation of steroids, which players take, at least in part, to recover faster from injuries?
This entire episode is just very, very troubling from many angles.
Tom,
No offense, but I’m not buying that argument, at least, not completely. Bonds had never, ever hit anywhere near the average # of HRs per season between 1990 and 1998 as he did between 1998 and 2004. I’m too lazy to look up the numbers, but it’s plainly statistically significant.
Why can’t anabolic steroids add 10 meters to a ball that didn’t quite hit the sweet spot? Why can’t anabolic steroids improve reflexes, the speed of the bat and the hands through the zone? Why can’t some of the pharms he was taking improve his eyesight (this is at the center of some of the allegations)?
Your point, that it is all a matter of degree (what with amphetamines and cortisone shots) is well taken. But it doesn’t follow from that that steroids are not sui generis. IMO, they are. I can tolerate some of the other stuff. I cannot tolerate this.
TP, As far as Bond’s increased production is concerned, Hank Aaron’s best year for home runs – when he had the most homers per at bat – was 1973 when he was 39. His second best was in 1971, at age 37. Willie Stargell had his best seasons after age 37. Carlton Fisk put his best rate in the books when he was 40. Craig Biggio had his best home run season last season at the age of 39. Even Ty Cobb had his best home run rate at age 38, although the end of the dead-ball era helped that. Accordingly, it is not uncommon for a slugger to change his mechanics as he ages, swinging for the fences as his ability to run the bases declines.
Meanwhile, other factors over the past 10-15 years in MLB contributed to the increased numbers of home runs. The new smaller ballparks, diluted pitching staffs, improved conditioning protocols, etc.
My point is not that steroids may not have helped Bonds and others improve their performance. My sense is that they probably did, although — absent substantive research to the contrary — I also believe that the improvement in performance was on the margin.
Tom,
I can buy that Bonds may have improved with age. But to add THAT much power stats? I feel fairly confident it was by an order of magnitude, not a jump of 5-6 HRs.
We’ll just have to disagree. I see no reason to believe that the obscene jump in power stats was only “marginally” attributable to the steroid use. To be sure, the causality isn’t monolithic; all of the other factors you mention are relevant. But I think steroids are a much, much bigger factor than you do.