Media coverage of steroids in baseball is old and familiar.
Player A injects a needle into his arm and suddenly he hits the ball farther
than ever before. In the newspapers the same statistics are repeated, and the
same faces on the screen go on about how players from the steroid era should
have an asterisk next to their stats. Their distaste surfaced in the case of
Jeff Bagwell, who was never implicated in any steroid scandal, but received fewer
than expected hall of fame votes— some voters didn’t like the way he bulked up
over his career.
In the most recent offseason the media’s sharp eye turned on
Ryan Braun, the freshly made National League MVP. The media reduced his
incredible season to one more piece of evidence of the destructive nature of
steroids in baseball. “He would never be
that good without the steroids,” was the common groupthink.
Forty games into the new season Braun continues to send
balls to the stands. His isolated power (Slugging Percentage minus Batting
Average) has improved from the “steroid” aided .265 of last year to .296 this
year. And over the first 42 games his triple slash line of .323/.393/.621 sits
well above his career average of .313/.372/.566. Despite the steroid scandal of
the offseason, Braun continues to hit baseballs a very long way. While the
sample size is small, Braun’s excellent performance leads to the question: how
much do steroids impact performance?
Ryan Braun’s Isolated Power from his rookie debut in 2007 to May 2012. Courtesy of Fangraphs |
As a fan we expect steroids to impact performance. The
steroid era of the early 2000’s was defined by the gigantic homeruns (and
muscles) of sluggers like Barry Bonds and Mark Mc Guire. We are conditioned to
believe that steroid use leads to more power. Steroids increase strength, and
an athlete taking steroid recovers quicker and can workout with greater
intensity. Naturally we assume steroids would improve a baseball player. The
actual impact of steroids is not so clear-cut. Although strength helps in
baseball, it’s not always the strongest player who hits the most homeruns.
Hitting a baseball a long way requires a combination of mechanics, hand-eye
coordination and strength. How much strength contributes to the equation is one
of the unanswerable mysteries of baseball.
The basic numbers do support the popular perception—that steroids
help players hit homeruns. In 1990, both leagues hit a combined 3,317 homeruns.
By 2000, the height of the steroid era, that number jumped up to 5,693
homeruns. Some change in baseball was leading to more homeruns. And the
revelation of mass steroid use, implicating some of baseball’s most prominent
sluggers, made steroids the natural culprit.
In this ten-year period, homeruns increased by 71.6 percent,
a significant increase. But change is a part of baseball. The strike zone
changes, the ballparks change, and the players change. While a 71 percent
increase in homeruns seems incredibly significant, in the annals of baseball it
is not uncommon. From 1945 to 1955, homeruns increased from 1,007 to 2,224— over
a 100 percent increase. And from 1919 to 1929, the number of long balls rose
from 447 to 1349. Instead of an anomaly, the steroid era fits in with the
normal pattern of homerun rates rising sharply over only a few seasons. Steroids
did not cause balls to fly out of the park in the 1920’s. Perhaps in the
“steroid era” steroids were not the most significant factor.
One fourth of a season from Ryan Braun is far from
conclusive, but perhaps it can serve as a “…” in the steroid narrative, to
counteract the sea of *’s that add little to the debate. Until more evidence
comes in we simply don’t know how steroids impact a player’s statistics. The
media repeats the same numbers, ostensibly proving that steroid users caused
the increase, but the actual answer is complex. Steroids impacted baseball,
that is a fact. But an important question remains: How much? Perhaps we will
never know, but the topic of steroid use in baseball deserves more analysis and
less blind opinion.
-Alex Harleen
No comments:
Post a Comment