Statistics, Performance Enhancing Drugs, and Major League Baseball–II.

How annoying about the sources. They can all be found here: http://www.debate.org... except for [12], which works in round 1. About the definition of legitimate: I can provide a new one, but we can also run with yours. Both of them work fine. Alternate definition: of the normal or regular type or kind. [1] As we discussed earlier, this debate is about statistical legitimacy. A legitimate statistic is one that can still be used for its intended purpose. "The known effects of PEDs [2]:" I don't think this refutes what I said. Where is this lean muscle mass, and does it help? I addressed what kinds of muscle help and what kinds don't. How does it help them train longer and harder, as in, training which parts of the body? Are these parts important in baseball? Keep in mind, folks, that general athletic ability is far different from baseball ability. "This can be explained. The people who couldn't make it to the major league decided that they would cheat to get in. The boost wasn't large enough to get them to the very top, but they made it." Of course, this still assumes that PEDs even help. "Muscle mass and strength sound good, but the training is the major part for baseball. Training is basically a wild card, because it can be applied to any muscle group, including the core-abs, the oh-so-important muscle group for baseball." Right, I addressed this. What groups can suddenly be trained better? "How many pitchers use steroids?" I fail to see how this was even very relevant, but actually, many do. Take a look at the Mitchell Report. There are many pitchers there. It's a very common misconception that steroids were abused far more often by hitters. I was only providing an additional argument as to why steroids don't help pitchers. "This implies that there is an effect on the lower body." Weak. Of course, I'm not going to outright say that there is zero effect. Perhaps there is some, but if there is, it is minimal. "1. Notice how the power factor was going down rather steeply until the 'Steroid Era.' The slackening of this decrease could very easily be attributed to PEDs, as they seem to be the only factor left in the graph." First of all, there were other factors, specifically, changes in bats and the shift towards the creation of new, hitter-friendly ballparks. [2] [3] Second, I barely even understand what you're saying. Power still declined. How can steroids help if power still declined? In any case, a look at the next, much larger graph on that website shows that there is no change in the power levels. "PEDs?" This isn't even in the time frame. "And what about the players who actually play by the rules and don't use PEDs? What do you propose?" Uh... what? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "For one thing, the pitchers gain less from steroids." Evidence? Don't try using my argument about the external rotation of the upper arm. That was only an additional reason why arm mass wouldn't help a pitcher. It doesn't help your argument, which concerns magnitude of help. "For another, if the baseball is going faster, and Barry Bonds is hitting harder, this would lead to an increase in home runs, because quick fast balls are the optimal pitch for a home run. That's why they pitch down-the-line fastballs in the home-run derby. Therefore, steroid use on both sides leads to even more home runs, so it definitely can't be legitimate." The baseball is going faster? Bonds is hitting harder? Haven't I addressed those? Isn't that the whole point of the debate? I'm showing that those things didn't happen. "Finally, what about the 5% of the pitches that weren't backed by steroids? Those would still interfere with the statistics." Insignificantly so, and barely so, because as I've shown above, steroids don't really help. "Again, what is to be done for the players who played by the rules?" Nothing, because those who broke the rules didn't have an effect on the statistics. "So, because PEDs DO have an effect," You haven't shown that. "and the playing field isn't COMPLETELY even," Insignificant, even if we assume that steroids help. "and the statistics ARE influenced," You haven't shown that. "the resolution is NEGATED." Nope. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://just2sportsguys.blogspot.com... [3]http://sports.espn.go.com...