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

Okay, now my opponent wants to talk about statistical legitimacy. However, this actually plays to my advantage. In science, if a variable is accidentally thrown in, and its effect is unknown, it doesn't matter how small or large the effect really is. The experiment's results are invalidated. If a scientist decides to grow some plants under Condition A to observe the effects compared to plants under Condition B, and he realizes that he used tap water for Condition A, but vitamin water for Condition B, what should he do? Invalidate the experiment. If the effect of the vitamin water is unknown, there's no way that he can publish these results. Therefore, because not all is known about steroids, we have to assume them to have an effect until proven scientifically otherwise, and therefore cannot accept steroid-influenced statistics [1]. "Where is this lean muscle mass, and does it help?" Lean muscle is built up all over the body. "How does it help them train longer and harder, as in, training which parts of the body?" If you want to run further, you can run further, tiring later. If you want to do 1,000 sit-ups, you'll do it with less pain, increasing the chances of doing them all before giving up. Sit-ups, of course, have a major effect on the core-abs [2]. "What groups can suddenly be trained better?" All of them. "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." So, you concede that there might be a minimal effect. However, even a minimal effect is statistically significant [3]. "First of all, there were other factors, specifically, changes in bats and the shift towards the creation of new, hitter-friendly ballparks." One of your own sources says, "While steroids were obviously a factor in the offensive explosion of the last dozen seasons..." So, if this source is reliable, you lose. If this source is unreliable, your contention about bats and stadiums fails, because your other source doesn't say "bat" or "stadium" anywhere. "Second, I barely even understand what you're saying." If the U.S. were increasing its debt by $5 trillion every year, and suddenly, one year, this rate changed to $2 trillion, we'd still be losing money, but there had to have been some factor to slow this down. "In any case, a look at the next, much larger graph on that website shows that there is no change in the power levels." That's because the second graph doesn't show how the slope used to be much steeper, but suddenly evened out. "Uh... what? This has nothing to do with the topic at hand." Well, if not everybody is using steroids, then we obviously can't call it an even playing field. Let's say that we have two players who are identical, except that one used steroids and the other didn't. Ordinarily, they both would have the exact same statistics. However, the steroid user ended up with a few more home runs every season because of his steroid usage. Obviously, these statistics cannot be compared with each other. "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." Hey, I'm trying to attack all of the steps at once. I have to show that steroids have an effect, and then I have to refute the "even playing field" theory. So, I might as well do both at once. Well, this looks as if you concede that if PEDs do have an effect, then it would lead to an increase in home runs, so an even playing field would not occur in terms of statistics. "Insignificantly so, and barely so, because as I've shown above, steroids don't really help." You concede that steroids might have a minimal effect. Statistically, with an outside factor that cannot be accounted for, and might have an effect on the results, the results are no longer legitimate. Because this outside factor has a minimal effect, this effect is not due to chance, because it is correlated with PED usage, so it would be counted as statistically significant. "Nothing, because those who broke the rules didn't have an effect on the statistics." Oh, but you conceded that there might have been a minimal effect. "You haven't shown that." You conceded the possibility. "Insignificant, even if we assume that steroids help." Very significant, because the resolution prompts comparison among all MLB players, including the honest ones. "You haven't shown that." Then why did you concede it? "Nope." Yup. Again, because it is conceded that there might be a minimal (but still statistically significant) effect on statistics, the statistics cannot be held as legitimate. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(statistics) 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...(exercise) 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...