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

Abbreviations: MLB–Major League Baseball. PED–Performance Enhancing Drug(s). Definitions: Performance Enhancing Drug(s)–substances used by athletes with the intent to improve their performances in the sports in which they engage. [1] With baseball, this usually refers mainly to anabolic steroids. [2] Thus, in this debate, "steroids" and "PEDs" will be used interchangeably. Hopefully, my opponent does not have a problem with this. Resolution: The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s through 2004, otherwise considered the height of the "Steroid Era" by MLB fans, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players. A bit of an introduction: As anyone who has any interest in MLB may know, artificial performance enhancement through PEDs has become a huge issue in the last decade or so, mainly because of the huge home run chases of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa that are credited with bringing fans back to MLB and the subsequent revelations and suspicions that the two were using PEDs, and the incredible performances of Barry Bonds in the early 2000s and the large controversies surrounding him and steroid use. Often, among the outrage from many fans towards those who have admitted to PED use, there are cries to invalidate statistics, under the pretense that these statistics are heavily skewed by illegal means. [3] – there are ridiculous numbers of sources for this; search some combination of "steroids," "statistics," and "strip" or "asterisk" or something and many results will pop up. My argument: I'm here to say heck naw. The statistics of those players who we now know or are almost sure were using PEDs–Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds–are still accurate in determining how good those players were compared to the rest of the league. 1. A PED's positive effect on baseball playing skills is unknown and likely minimal. 1a. Many of the players using PEDs were actually bottom-of-the-ladder MLB players and minor leaguers. [4] One can find the names of many of the MLB players on the Mitchell Report anywhere; here's an easy list. [5] On this list, we can see many players who were simply not very good Major League players, as evidenced most strongly by their incredibly short careers. On that list, for example, the names of players active at the time of the report, which was December 2007, is pretty low. Many of the players listed on the report as having used PEDs reportedly used them in the early 2000s but were not active by 2007. This shows that despite their PED use, they weren't good enough to stick around in the Major Leagues. If PEDs gave a huge benefit to those who used them, why did so many who used them end up being bad MLB players anyway? 1b. The physical gain from steroids, most notably increased muscle mass, is vastly overstated in its importance to playing baseball well. The key muscle group in baseball is the core–abs, lower back, obliques, etc. This muscle group is the most important in generating torque in both hitting and pitching, and is thus the most important in generating bat speed and arm speed, and thus the most important in hitting baseballs hard and far and throwing sick heat (a baseball fast.) I think it's dumb to cite a source for this, but I'll just pick a couple anyway. [6] (get used to seeing [6]; it has beastly information.) [7] Another important part of baseball, actually, especially in pitching, is flexibility. [7] A flexible pitcher is able to create more external rotation of the upper pitching arm ([8]), which results in more velocity. [12] I think it's obvious that more arm mass–bicep and tricep mass, which obviously results from steroid use–would inhibit the pitching arm's external rotation and thus lower a pitcher's speed. The last important muscle group in hitting and pitching is the lower body. Steroids, however, have a much more pronounced effect on the upper body than the lower body, and the upper body is actually quite irrelevant in creating bat speed or arm speed. [6] 2. The increased power numbers in the Steroid Era can be attributed to many other factors. Many people point to the huge numbers put up by Steroid Era players as evidence for PED's effect on statistics. However, there were numerous other factors contributing to a huge rise in offense. [6] One of the most notable changes was the "juiced" ball–in 1993, the ball-manufacturing process was changed, and in a 2000 study, it was shown that baseballs in 1995 and 2000 bounced an average of 33% higher than balls from previous eras. [6] [9] Using a "spliced" power factor, which accounts for the changes in equipment manufacturing, there is NO "power spike" that supposedly occurred during the Steroid Era, as a result of PEDs. [6] I would highly recommend looking at that site, especially the "spliced" power factor graph. It's very interesting. 3. Due to the most likely very high numbers of players who were using PEDs during the Steroid Era, any advantage gained by a player was usually cancelled out by an advantage gained by an opposing player. [10] In essence, enough players used PEDs to create an "even playing field." If 95% of the pitchers Barry Bonds faced were also using steroids, then aren't his records still legitimate? How do we know tons of players used steroids? Obviously, we don't have concrete numbers. We do, however, have player's accounts. [10] Some players have talked about the rampant steroid use in the late 1990s and early 2000s made possible by lenient drug policies, and some have suggested the idea of the level playing field. The allegations of "rampant steroid use" are what prompted the initial congressional investigations into MLB's PED problems. [11] Conclusion: Steroids in baseball were not a significant enough factor in statistical evidence to influence decisions on which players were the best or worst. The actual benefits players get from steroids is very questionable, considering the number of bad MLB players who have used PEDs without enough of a benefit to even stay in the Major Leagues, and considering the muscle groups utilized in baseball versus those that are enhanced by PED use. The increase in offense during the Steroid Era was influenced by other factors, most notably the "ball juicing" of 1993. When adjusting for these power factors that were unrelated to playing ability, there is no apparent jump in offense during the steroid era, again calling into question the effect of steroids in increasing performance. Finally, regardless of the magnitude of a PED's benefit on player performance, any benefit was cancelled or balanced by someone else's benefit. Because most players were using PEDs, their statistics, when compared to each other's, are unchanged. The widespread use of PEDs created a level playing field for MLB players. I'd like to thank in advance whoever takes this argument, and I eagerly await his or her arguments. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [3]http://bleacherreport.com...... [4]http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com...... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [6]http://steroids-and-baseball.com...... [7]http://baseballtips.com...... [8]http://www.jssm.org...... [9]http://steroids-and-baseball.com...... [10]http://38pitches.weei.com...... [11]http://www.cbc.ca...... (check the side bar, towards the bottom.) [12]http://www.hardballtimes.com...