Bleacher Bums Forum

It is a shame that Raines and especially Biggio didnt get in. A case can be made for Lee Smith as well.

This is an EXTREMELY compelling article regarding HR rates and the steriod era.



If you have an opinion of any kind on the matter, it's required reading. Opinions are like a-holes... everyone has one. Unfortunately, there are far too many a-holes farting about their opinions on this matter, rather than actually examining the facts.

I wish that Fangraphs article went back another 5 years or so into the late '80s.  Offense jumped pretty much overnight around 1993, indicating that either (a) everyone started using steroids at exactly the same time (rather than use gradually growing starting in the 1970s through the '80s and '90s, like every other sport), or (b) some factor other than steroids (or a combination of factors) was primarily responsible for the jump in offense. 

That Fangraphs article shows a big jump in home runs between 1993 and 1994, but you can't really tell if that's a real jump or if 1993 was a one year low blip on the radar.

Tico,  the "fangraphs" data indicate there were 41% more home runs in 2000 than in 1993.

Conversely, there were only 5.4% more "contacts in 2000 than 1993.

That means, I guess, there were many more home runs per contact in 2000??  That the increase in the percentage of HR/Contacts appears to be small (1%) is only because of the very large amount of contacts compared to home runs. It's a math trick of the sort employed by politicians daily.

Why complicate things?  There were 41% more home runs in 2000 than there were in 1993. That would be the equivalent of batting averages rising from .250 to .350 in seven years.
 

In 1993 there were 2.3% HR/PA.
In 2000 there were 3.0% HR/PA.

Which means...the "average player" with 600PA for a season would have hit 4.2 more home runs in 2000 than in 1993. Since, presumably, "average" players don't cheat, and assuming that "average" players far out number the cheaters, it naturally follows that the cheaters were accumulating an inordinately high number of home runs.

If somebody could provide the percentage of cheaters to non-cheaters we could develop a new statistic. The Steroids Homerun Increase Totals.

Writers who chose to share their HOF ballots

Tico,  the "fangraphs" data indicate there were 41% more home runs in 2000 than in 1993.

Conversely, there were only 5.4% more "contacts in 2000 than 1993.

That means, I guess, there were many more home runs per contact in 2000??  That the increase in the percentage of HR/Contacts appears to be small (1%) is only because of the very large amount of contacts compared to home runs. It's a math trick of the sort employed by politicians daily.

Why complicate things?  There were 41% more home runs in 2000 than there were in 1993. That would be the equivalent of batting averages rising from .250 to .350 in seven years.
 

Cherry pick the years if you like, and then use the outlier (it's 1993) as the basis for your analysis. Here's a more meaningful statistical analysis. The mean rate for the data given is 3.69% with a standard deviation of 0.24%. 1993 is something of an outlier, while 2000 is just outside stdev1, meaning that the event, while unlikely, is not outside the realm of statistical normalcy.

Speaking more generally, most of the windbags in the media will tell you the peak of steroid usage was late 90's - early 2000's. Most will suggest there has been a dramatic reduction in HR rate since more rigorous testing has been implemented. The data just doesn't show that, period.

Just a simple question...does anyone believe steroid/PED use in baseball started more or less overnight?  Or did it build over a series of years? 

IMO, the latter scenario makes a lot more sense.  If baseball players before the early 1990s believed steroids wouldn't help (and may even contribute to bulk that would limit their flexibility and hurt their game--I have heard this argument often), then it's doubtful there would be a league-wide adoption in the course of a season or two.  Rather, it would take several years of proven success to convince players to try steroids, and the usage would increase gradually.

But that isn't what the league-wide statistical record says.  Here are two stats from 1980-1992: runs scored per game, and HR per game:

R/G: 4.29-4.00-4.30-4.31-4.26-4.33-4.41-4.72-4.14-4.13-4.26-4.31-4.12 (average 4.28)
HR/G: 0.73-0.64-0.80-0.78-0.77-0.86-0.91-1.06-0.76-0.73-0.80-0.72 (average 0.74)

Now, the same numbers for 1993-2007:

R/G: 4.60-4.92-4.85-5.04-4.77-4.79-5.08-5.14-4.78-4.62-4.73-4.81-4.59-4.86-4.80 (average 4.83)
HR/G: 0.89-1.03-1.01-1.09-1.02-1.04-1.14-1.17-1.12-1.04-1.07-1.12-1.03-1.11-1.02 (average 1.06)

Outside of 1987 (which was an outlier), there is a clear change in 1993.  Before 1993, R/G was typically in the low 4s, and HR/9 was well below 1.0.  1993 was a transition year.  Then in 1994-2007, R/G was in the high 4s/low 5s, while HR/9 was slightly above 1.0.  There is no clear pattern of steady increase at any point...just typical year-to-year variance with a sustained increase in 1993-1994. 

So are we going to say that steroids went from barely used to abused league-wide in the span of a year?  Or are we going to admit that the increase in runs scored is more complex than just saying steroids did it? 

The two biggest reasons for increase, maybe more important than PEDs?  Both reasons fit the timeline and would cause quick increases in offense.

- 1993 and 1998 expansions obviously had an impact (both because it diluted talent and because it introduced the biggest outlying scoring environment in MLB history). 

- Studies show that balls manufactured after 1993 are manufactured differently (balls from 1998 have a larger core and synthetic rubber ring: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2719191) and are more lively (balls from 1995 and 2000 bounce higher than those from 1963, 1970, and 1989: this study also has evidence of differences in ball structure) than those from previous years.  More information here: and here: .

It really is amazing how quickly the ball juicing thing was dropped when PEDs became the hot button in the mid '00s, because it's very likely the balls were juiced.  I'd like to see some follow-ups on balls from the last 5 years to see if they changed again sometime around 2007-2008.