Greenies vs. Steroids

[Ubiquitous]

I think a relevant question is when exactly did greenies become illegal? Regardless of the difference in effectiveness (obviously steroids are the better ergogenic aid), the questioner was asking what is the moral difference (not the performance difference) between the two.

With that in mind, I think that knowing exactly when amphetamines became illegal and exactly when they became banned by baseball, would be important to answering that question. Currently, amphetamines are illegal except when prescribed by a doctor. I know that Brooks Robinson likened them to a cup of coffee..... hmmmm. Coffee isn't in the same class of illegal drugs as cocaine (which amphetamines are). Lord knows I'd rather drink a cup of joe then injest a banned substance, so what gives Brooksie?

They became illegal in 1970, as did much of the drugs that are illegal today. That was when Nixon enacted the Control Substance Act. Speed is now a schedule 2 drug, just like Cocaine, Ritalin, and morphine.

Steroids is a schedule 3 drugs which is actually lower then schedule 2 drugs. The law deems these drugs as lower risks then Schedule 1 and 2.

[Ubiquitous]

Home runs last year dropped to their lowest levels since 1997 if I remember correctly (almost 8% from 2004) and I'm sure I can dig up a bill james quote or two that alludes to steroids impact.

Dropping to 1997 is not exactly a iron clad proof. Its actually bad research. LAst years home run numbers in the NL were the same as they were in 2002, and they are still at historic highs. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the homers were at an all time high. They then dropped by almost 14% in 2002. Does that mean 2002 is proof that the players got off steroids?

In the AL the homers peaked in 1996 and never reached that peak again. The homer totals in 2005 for the AL are virtually the same as they were in 2002 and 2003.

The Bill James quotes you would dig up would not be in support of steroid use but quotes cautioning anyone from jumping to those conclusions based on one year of data.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Dropping to 1997 is not exactly a iron clad proof. Its actually bad research. LAst years home run numbers in the NL were the same as they were in 2002, and they are still at historic highs. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the homers were at an all time high. They then dropped by almost 14% in 2002. Does that mean 2002 is proof that the players got off steroids?

In the AL the homers peaked in 1996 and never reached that peak again. The homer totals in 2005 for the AL are virtually the same as they were in 2002 and 2003.

The Bill James quotes you would dig up would not be in support of steroid use but quotes cautioning anyone from jumping to those conclusions based on one year of data.

Whether it was increased steroid use, or the offensive environment changing for good, something took place in 1996. Before then, in the history of the game, an average ML team had never had over 151 HR in a season. (With the exception of '87 which was clearly a fluke. Many, many players had career highs in homers that year for some reason. Some think the ball was juiced for that one season) Then all of a sudden it shoots way above that for 10 straight years.

[Ubiquitous]

Whether it was increased steroid use, or the offensive environment changing for good, something took place in 1996. Before then, in the history of the game, an average ML team had never had over 151 HR in a season. (With the exception of '87 which was clearly a fluke. Many, many players had career highs in homers that year for some reason. Some think the ball was juiced for that one season) Then all of a sudden it shoots way above that for 10 straight years.

That is technically not true. By using raw numbers one forgets that for most of the history of the game teams played a 154 game schedule and that 1994 and 1995 were shortened seasons. If we set it up so that every single teams homer rate is based on a 162 game schedule there are plenty of teams before 1996 to get past the magical threshould of 151. The magical homer era of the 50's shows up quite well. For the NL it was 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Now was 1996 the start of anything, 1994 and 1995's shortened seasons actually masked the increase in homers for those years.

perSe	yearID	lgID
155.9	1953	NL
166.1	1955	NL
159.0	1956	NL
154.1	1957	NL
155.6	1958	NL
151.4	1959	NL
156.5	1961	NL
153.2	1961	AL
155.4	1962	AL
154.3	1964	AL
155.8	1985	AL
163.6	1986	AL
188.1	1987	AL
152.2	1987	NL
180.3	1994	AL
154.5	1994	NL
173.5	1995	AL
154.2	1995	NL
196.0	1996	AL
158.6	1996	NL
177.2	1997	AL
154.5	1997	NL
160.1	1998	NL
178.5	1998	AL
188.5	1999	AL
180.9	1999	NL
192.3	2000	AL
187.7	2000	NL
179.2	2001	AL
184.5	2001	NL
162.4	2002	NL
176.3	2002	AL
169.4	2003	NL
178.3	2003	AL
186.2	2004	AL
178.0	2004	NL
174.1	2005	AL
161.1	2005	NL

[Sultan_1895-1948]

That is technically not true. By using raw numbers one forgets that for most of the history of the game teams played a 154 game schedule and that 1994 and 1995 were shortened seasons. If we set it up so that every single teams homer rate is based on a 162 game schedule there are plenty of teams before 1996 to get past the magical threshould of 151. The magical homer era of the 50's shows up quite well. For the NL it was 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, and 1959.

Now was 1996 the start of anything, 1994 and 1995's shortened seasons actually masked the increase in homers for those years.

perSe	yearID	lgID
155.9	1953	NL
166.1	1955	NL
159.0	1956	NL
154.1	1957	NL
155.6	1958	NL
151.4	1959	NL
156.5	1961	NL
153.2	1961	AL
155.4	1962	AL
154.3	1964	AL
155.8	1985	AL
163.6	1986	AL
188.1	1987	AL
152.2	1987	NL
180.3	1994	AL
154.5	1994	NL
173.5	1995	AL
154.2	1995	NL
196.0	1996	AL
158.6	1996	NL
177.2	1997	AL
154.5	1997	NL
160.1	1998	NL
178.5	1998	AL
188.5	1999	AL
180.9	1999	NL
192.3	2000	AL
187.7	2000	NL
179.2	2001	AL
184.5	2001	NL
162.4	2002	NL
176.3	2002	AL
169.4	2003	NL
178.3	2003	AL
186.2	2004	AL
178.0	2004	NL
174.1	2005	AL
161.1	2005	NL

I was talking about both leagues combined, and I didn't leave any years out.

I understand that you need to look deeper than raw numbers, but still, the raw numbers are glaring. Are you contending that homers didn't jump up in the 90's Ubi? Explain 60 HR being hit however many times, all by alleged steroid users. Hell, even Louis Gonzalez hit 57 thanks to the offensive environment. Granted, that was a major fluke, but it makes things like that possible. Greg Vaughn, Brady Anderson,..others?

The average ERA isn't game dependent, and those raw stats show the same thing as the HR increase does.

[ESPNFan]

Dropping to 1997 is not exactly a iron clad proof. Its actually bad research. LAst years home run numbers in the NL were the same as they were in 2002, and they are still at historic highs. In 1999, 2000, and 2001 the homers were at an all time high. They then dropped by almost 14% in 2002. Does that mean 2002 is proof that the players got off steroids?

In the AL the homers peaked in 1996 and never reached that peak again. The homer totals in 2005 for the AL are virtually the same as they were in 2002 and 2003.

The Bill James quotes you would dig up would not be in support of steroid use but quotes cautioning anyone from jumping to those conclusions based on one year of data.

LOL bad research? You might want to tell Will Caroll who wrote the Book "The Juice" but judging by the numbers he might have a bone to pick with you.

This is the homeruns per game since 1985. (again the source is Will Caroll)

NL AL
1985 0.73 0.96
1986 0.79 1.01
1987 0.94 1.16
1988 0.66 0.84
1989 0.70 0.76
1990 0.78 0.79
1991 0.74 0.86
1992 0.65 0.78
1993 0.86 0.91
1994 0.95 1.11
1995 0.95 1.07
1996 0.98 1.21
1997 0.95 1.09
1998 0.99 1.10
1999 1.12 1.16
2000 1.16 1.19
2001 1.14 1.11
2002 1.00 1.09
2003 1.05 1.10
2004 1.10 1.15
2005 0.99 1.07

Its pretty clear that 1996 was not the peak of homerun production in MLB and that infact 2000. And you can see as well that 2005's production was less tha that of 1998.

And as far as Bill James go he was on record in Howard Bryants Book "Jucing the Game" as follows:
"About five years ago I did a series of studies focusing on constant and changing parks and studying the runs scored in each. My conclusion was that the new parks accounted for less that 20% of the increace in runs scored. 80 percent or more was caused by other factors."

Knowing how Thorough James is don't you think its odd that he only alludes to that 80% as "other factors"?

He went on to say:
"Obviously there are substances that impact a players performance. But saying specificly what the effects are, in the statistics are either a) impossible or b) beyond me. The problem is that with the exception of the odd case like the 65 homer players, whatever is done by one player with Steroids will be done by players without them. Ken Caminiti on Steroids posted the same batting numbers as Henry Aaron did without them. I don't know how one could distinguish the 'real' or innate ability from the jucied up numbers"

While James is saying that its almost impossible to figure the exact impact numericly of Anabolics he basicly calls out the 65 plus homer seasons of Sosa Bonds and McGwire as steroid aided and also states that a guy like Caminiti can put up numbers similar to that of a hall of famer with the help of them.
Its obvious to Bill James that Anabolics have made an impact on baseball but because of the nature of the substance and the lengths some users will go to hide their invovlement with them there is no way to quantify it more.

[Ubiquitous]

Well if Will had a bone to pick with everybody that disagreed with him he would be sitting atop an elephant graveyard.

I never say that the home run production peaked in 1996 for the majors. What I did say was that in the AL it peaked in 1996, which by the way it did.

And as for Bill he basically said what I just told you he would say, don't jump to conclusions. And no I don't thinks it odd that he doesn't describe the other 80% because he has before. Bill has listed a lot of things he thinks caused a jump. Everything from the stadium, the umps, the ball, the bats, the players, the drugs, and probably several other things I have forgotten.

[ESPNFan]

And some pointers on formatting stats for this site would be most appreciated ; )

[ESPNFan]

Well if Will had a bone to pick with everybody that disagreed with him he would be sitting atop an elephant graveyard.

I never say that the home run production peaked in 1996 for the majors. What I did say was that in the AL it peaked in 1996, which by the way it did.

And as for Bill he basically said what I just told you he would say, don't jump to conclusions. And no I don't thinks it odd that he doesn't describe the other 80% because he has before. Bill has listed a lot of things he thinks caused a jump. Everything from the stadium, the umps, the ball, the bats, the players, the drugs, and probably several other things I have forgotten.

But you can't just look at half the numbers. The NL in 1996 had the second lowest HR per game totals in the peak years from 1995-2005.

James calls out the historic homerun seasons of McGwire Sosa and Bonds and you say he's not jumping to conclusions? He says that a Jucied up Caminiti put up similar numbers to Hank Aaron! How is that not jumping to conclusions?

[Ubiquitous]

I was talking about both leagues combined, and I didn't leave any years out.

I understand that you need to look deeper than raw numbers, but still, the raw numbers are glaring. Are you contending that homers didn't jump up in the 90's Ubi? Explain 60 HR being hit however many times, all by alleged steroid users. Hell, even Louis Gonzalez hit 57 thanks to the offensive environment. Granted, that was a major fluke, but it makes things like that possible. Greg Vaughn, Brady Anderson,..others?

The average ERA isn't game dependent, and those raw stats show the same thing as the HR increase does.

I didn't say you left any numbers out, but if you look at MLB totals per 162 you still have 1994 and 1995 above the magical 151 as well as 1961.

As for the homers we have been over this before. Neither one of us has anything new to add. My view is already documented in those threads.

[Ubiquitous]

But you can't just look at half the numbers. The NL in 1996 had the second lowest HR per game totals in the peak years from 1995-2005.

James calls out the historic homerun seasons of McGwire Sosa and Bonds and you say he's not jumping to conclusions? He says that a Jucied up Caminiti put up similar numbers to Hank Aaron! How is that not jumping to conclusions?

This is what Bill James said in your quotes:

Obviously there are substances that impact a players performance. But saying specificly what the effects are, in the statistics are either a) impossible or b) beyond me.

Nor do I see him calling anyone out. If anything unless I missed something new of his, he generally defended the steroid users. Bill generally picked the side that was getting attacked by rumors and innuendos and urged people to not jump to conclusions based on false analysis. Such as his staunch support for Pete Rose.

He says Caminiti a known steroid user put similar numbers to Hank so therefore how do we adjust, what is real what is not? That is what he is saying. He isn't saying that since Caminiti put up Aaron numbers therefore everything that happened is because of steroids. What he is saying is "I don't know, and I don't know how to go about finding out"

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And some pointers on formatting stats for this site would be most appreciated ; )

Try this:

[ code]<<<<< make sure that space isn't there

I
N
S
E
R
T

S
T
U
F
F
[/code]

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Nobody said '96 was the peak. I mentioned that it looked like something changed in '96 and continued to grow from there.

How did we get off of the greenie vs juice topic? How can anyone think HR didn't increase in part because of PED's. Were there other factors, sure, several. But PED's played a part in all of this, including helping to change players' approaches at the plate.

[ESPNFan]

Actually James is pretty Brutal to certain people.

From his 2001 historical abstract in his asessment of Larry Walker's hitting .350 for three straight seasons. (and also listed in Bryants book)


"It will be interesting to see, as time goes by, how well the hall of fame voters will can see through the phoney batting stats of the 1994-2000 era, and pick out the truely great players from those who piled up numbers because of the unusual conditions in which they played."

Could he mean Coors feild? sure but why indicte a whole era of ball players, why not just say Coors Feild? And if James had said before that the increased offence is less than 20% attributable to ballparks then he must mean something else. I wonder what that could ever be?

As we get more and more details im sure James will expand his opinions on this subject and try to further explain the impact of the Steroid Era.

[Ubiquitous]

Nobody said '96 was the peak. I mentioned that it looked like something changed in '96 and continued to grow from there.

How did we get off of the greenie vs juice topic? How can anyone think HR didn't increase in part because of PED's. Were there other factors, sure, several. But PED's played a part in all of this, including helping to change players' approaches at the plate.

I know you didn't say peaked in 1996. I was disputing the notion that something changed in 1996. It didn't that happened earlier but was masked by the strike.