Baseball and steroids [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : Baseball and steroids

Archive

05-12-2004, 12:00 AM

Posted By: jay behrensI forget who waid it, maybe Peter Gammons, but it was said earlier this year when the BALCO story broke that it wasn't hitters that you would see affected the most by it, but the pitchers. I got done reading a bunch scouting reports on various pitchers that have gone from 95+ mph fastballs to throwing in the mid to high 80s. It would seem that reporter a bit more insight than everyone else. Jay

Archive

05-12-2004, 01:18 AM

Posted By: prewarsportsDoesn't seem to make sense to me. Some of the biggest guys I know can't throw a thing, and it is always the tall lanky guys with little muscle who can toss it in there over 90 MPH. I played baseball through the college level as a middle infielder and lifted weights in targeted areas to try and increase my throwing arm and basically it did nothing. I can see a guy with a 90 MPH fastball being able to add perhaps 1-2 MPH with pure strength but it is nothing that mechanics can not acheive better and faster. I would be willing to bet anything I own that it can not make but a very slight difference in speed, but perhaps in durability with greater leg strength it do a little bit. It's not like we are talking about a career .290 hitter with an average of 35 home runs a season doubling all his numbers overnight. Oh wait, Barry Bonds didn't use steroids, my bad!

Archive

05-12-2004, 02:50 AM

Posted By: jay behrensSteroids is not only used for muscle building, it is also used to allow you to train harder and recover faster. As for Bonds, or anyone else taking steroids, I could care less. As to your example, look at Roger Maris, Hank Greenberg, Hack Wilson, Louis Gonzales, George Foster and Brady Anderson. Prior to hitting 50+ HRs in a season, there was nothing to indicate that these players were capable of putting the HRs they did. The difference with Bonds is that he has been able to keep hitting HRs at a prolific pace. Did some of those players use steroids. Maybe. But evn if they did, it certainly didn't help them to continue to hit more HRs. So all you Bonds haters out there can whine all you want. Regardless of whether took steroids or not, what he is doing is simply incredible. Jay

Archive

05-12-2004, 05:00 AM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsOld George Steinbrenner's blood pressure probably jumps 30 points every time he thinks about Roger Clemens. Look at The Rocket's size and his performace this year at age 41. He struck out 11 Florida Marlins last night and is now 7 - 0. On something? I wonder what Boston Globe writer Peter Gammons might know about a guy that got away from Boston, too?

Archive

05-12-2004, 08:46 AM

Posted By: Glen VThere was an article in Outside a couple months back. The author took steroids and reported on the effects. He was most suprised by how much better his eyesight became. People never talk about steroids improving one's eyesight - seems like that alone could convince an aging batter to take them...

Archive

05-12-2004, 09:17 AM

Posted By: ElliotNot to keep picking on Jay, but how do you lump Greenberg, a HOF'er, in with the rest of those guys. I guess batting .337 with 40 HR's and 183 RBI's the season before he hit 58 or being the MVP three years previous, among other things was no indication.

Archive

05-12-2004, 09:32 AM

Posted By: J LevineDo steriods help performance in baseball? Yes and no. Being a pharmacist's son, I know a little about the effects of steroids. Does it help batters hit farther? Actually no, the last post really hit on why one of the effects is more homeruns. Steroids increase blood flow and muscle mass (depending on which you take). One of the advantages is better eyesight. This is what really helps the batter. Muscle mass does not really make a ballplayer hit homeruns. Bat speed and hand-eye coordination are far more important. Size helps a little but those two things are far more important. The comment about steroids letting you train harder is not really accurate. They let you train just as hard but the results are increased a lot quicker. Meaning if you train five days a week and gain 1 pound of muscle mass without steroids, when you take them, the same training will gain you 2 pounds of muscle mass (very simplified version of what happens). About you being able to recover faster, also not really accurate. Steroids do allow you to recover a little faster (see reasoning above) but you do get injured more often. Steroid users typically break bones easier, pull muscles easier, have joint problems sooner, etc. Heavy steroid users typically land on the D.L. a lot (Canseco jumps to mind as does Big Mac and even Jr.). Steroids also affect brain function, fertility (in both men and women), bone density, etc. You have all heard it before. What I hear often is "Who cares if they want to destroy their bodies for a little performance enhancer? It is their bodies correct?" I would agree with this argument if baseball was played in a vacuum. Baseball players influence children. PERIOD. I teach a first grade class just north of Los Angeles. The kids in my class over the last five years have given milk up for Gatorade, Drink Pepsi instead of water, wear jerseys of the Lakers, Angels, Dodgers, and Raiders, eat Met-Rx bars for breakfast, etc. I am not joking when I say athletes influence children. They often choose to write about their favorite player. They color pictures of them constantly. They pretend to be them on the playground. And let's not forget that they are only 6 and 7 years old! Heck, when I was a kid, I ran around with a wad of gum in my mouth just to look like a "big leaguer." Steroids are most dangerous when used by children still growing (before 21 years of age). They see their favorite players getting an advantage from performance enhancers, they want to try it. They are available from any mall GNC too. Outlaw steroids in the major leauges. Do it and do it now. Outlaw tobacco on the field while we are at it. My two cents (probably not even worth that much)... Joshua

Archive

05-12-2004, 09:44 AM

Posted By: Judge DredTed Williams is an excellent example of masking steroids. Look at the Splendid Splinter and know that if it weren't for roids he would have been about 35-40 pounds lighter and would have only hit 260 lifetime homeruns and batted about .300 rather than his credited lifetime average. Surely a skinny guy like that couldn't have done it on pure skill and ability... Pitchers on roids? I tend to agree with Prewarsports on this subject. Look at Pedro Martinez, he's a poster child for the "put me on roids because I sure don't look like I should have the natural ability to heave the ball" look. It's almost impossible to compare eras but you have to admit the game appears to have been much more so (a game) "back in the day"... Hank Aaron - Home Run King Barry Bonds - Great player but we'll all wonder - did he or didn'he (I think we all know the answer). I suppose in this day of "at all costs" we should look up to Barry as a role model. He still doesn't have a WS ring (unless he bought another players ring on ebay).

Archive

05-12-2004, 10:59 AM

Posted By: jay behrensGreenberg gets lumped in there because of the huge jump, from 40 to 58 HRs and then never aproaching that number again. It had nothing to do with quality of his career. Jay

Archive

05-12-2004, 12:48 PM

Posted By: RhettMr. Levine, I will never understand the argument that getting stronger would not affect ones bat speed, that just isn't logical. If you get stronger then you WILL be able to swing that bat harder and faster. Also, where do you come off implicating Jr. as a heavy roids user, did his trainer get hauled into jail when I wasn't looking? Jay, I think that it ubsurd to group Hack Wilson and Hank Greenberg as possible roid users, why don't we throw Babe in there as well, and while we are at it lets throw in Gavvy Cravath as the first official 'roids user to play in the majors, I mean you never know!?! I think everyone most would agree that it's not only Barry Bonds that we/I have a problem with, it is every major leaguer that has used illegal performance enhancing drugs. Barry Bonds just happens to be THE poster child for somewhere finding the fountain of youth in his late 30's. His stats don't lie...Before 2000 (when Barry was 36, I think the same age Griffey is right now) he hit 40 or more 3 times in his life-each time in between 517-539 at bats each of those seasons. In 1998 Barry hits 37 in 552 at bats, then following the season (which saw McGwire and Sosa's HR race) he hits almost the same # of HR's as he had the previous seaon (34) in 54 less games and 200 less at bats. The following season he hits his all time high to that point of 49 in only 480 at bats. Then in 2001 he goes crazy and hits 73, 24 more than the season just before that in 4 less at bats!!!!!! His statistics from 1999-Present are a red flag for steroid use, especially those from 2001 to present. Nobody starts hitting 40-70 points better than their average AFTER 15 years in the league. If you take away Barry's career year in 1993 his recent statistics are for a completely different person than the artist formerly known as Barry Bonds.

Archive

05-12-2004, 01:20 PM

Posted By: jay behrensThe point of mentioning those players was not as potential steroid users, but that with or without steroids, aberant jumps in power occur. And whether or not Bonds took steroids, you still have to be amazed at what he is doing. If steroids is the answer, then football players and wrestlers would be the greatest baseball players today. There is more to Bonds' accomplishments then just steroids. Talk to anyone in the Giants organization, his work ethic is unparalelled. This is the case for almost every great athlete today. Look at Jordan, Bird, Ryan, etc. They always worked on their game and kept themselves is the best physical codition possible. Jay

Archive

05-12-2004, 06:06 PM

Posted By: RhettJay, I agree. It is amazing what Barry is doing, BUT is it Barry that is really doing it? That is the question. I have never said Barry wasn't good before his last few seasons. Barry Bonds has always been a very, very good ballplayer. His statistics before 1999 were very good, some years better than other (like his great 1993 season). He proved the kind of athlete he was and was pretty consistent at it, and would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer had he continued being that player. Steroids took a very, very good player and gave him that little extra that he needed to become "one of the best all-time" statistically. Do I then consider him to be one of the best all-time? No, because I don't feel that his skill alone is what has helped him accomplish what he has.

Archive

05-12-2004, 06:30 PM

Posted By: CyFor what it's worth, I don't care about the steroids issue. I truly don't know if steroids has any bearing on the game. Sure people say that the muscle mass will definitely make you better. If that is true, then todays baseball players are better than past baseball players. Period. Without steroids they are bigger. They are faster. They are stronger. But what has eluded me is, does this make a better baseball player. Extra size, strength and speed definitely enhance the football and basketball player. There is no doubt that the players today in those sports are much better than eras gone by. But baseball? I don't know. If steroids and size make such great home run hitters, how can we explain Mays and Aaron. Neither were that big. But they both had incredible wrists for hitting a ball real far. In golf people bring up Tiger Woods and his physique. But Tiger could smack the ball further than most when he was in college. Do you have to be big to hit it long in golf? Ask Charles Howell III. He can walk home during a rain storm and not get wet by just moving in and out of the rain drops. But he hits the ball as far as anyone and further than most. In both of these sports, it is timing. It is timing of the release of the wrist. I don't think muscles increase that. And if they do, it is negligible. Someone brought up the fact that steroids enhance one's eyesight. If it truly does that, then steroids are a good thing. I heard an advertisement for a product that enhances your night vision. Is this a form a steroid? I don't know. But enhancing anyone's eyesight is a good thing. Again take the comparison between golf and baseball. And there is a definite relationship between hitting each of these balls. Ask Charley Lau and his pupil George Brett. Then take a look at Freddy Couples and watch Freddy Couples swing and watch how far it goes. It is all release of the wrists; cock the wrists, move the club head down, and at the last moment, release the wrists, and follow through (Why can't I do that though?) I don't think steroids has any effect on that. Hitting the baseball is the exact same thing without trees and sand traps. I know I went way overboard, but I wanted to call Tony Bruno's show and say these same thoughts. Now I did and it would be just as rewarding if someone would only say, "Beautiful". My two cents, guys. Cy

Archive

05-12-2004, 06:35 PM

Posted By: jay behrensWeightlifting helped players in the 60s and 70s stronger, as did better diets and training methods. Do players that benefited from this get their achivements discounted too? The legality agrument doesn't wash, since the Balco drugs weren't illegal. Every generation benefits from new training, methodology and technology. And the older generations always complain about what the new generation is doing. And 30 years from now, I doubt anyone is going to be worried about whether or not Bonds, or anyone else for that matter took steroids. Look to Maris and his 1961 season as a prime example of this effect. Jay

Archive

05-13-2004, 08:29 PM

Posted By: RhettCy, you can't actually believe what you wrote? You are right timing is important, but to say that strength has absolutely no affect on athletic performence is ludicrous. Jay, I think it is a huge stretch to compare increased training and diet to steroids, anabolic steroids is an unfair advantage that people taking it have. I won't even get into the side-effects of the drugs they are taking. Both of your guys' arguments are rediculous, and to be totally honest I can't really believe anybody actually thinks the way you do Cy.

Archive

05-14-2004, 02:04 AM

Posted By: jay behrensPlayers started wight training in late 60s and early 70s, catching on with everyong by the 80s. This gave these players a huge advantage over players from earlier generations. When it comes to sports, everyone is looking for a way to get an advantage on everyone else. Training year around used to be frowned upon, now it's the norm. Same goes for weight lifting. And this will continu on as long as sports exist. Personally, I say legalize the steroids, make it very clear what the hazards are, if someone feels that acne, an over agressive personality and shrunken penis are worth the risks, then who am I to say that he shouldn't take them? Would I like to see people playing sports without any sort of 'enhancement'? Yes. But this unrealistic and those think sports can ever be a 'pure' pursuit anyone is living in a fantasy. Jay

Archive

05-14-2004, 06:11 AM

Posted By: CyRhett, The point I was trying to make is that the kind of effects that steroids give to a player may not enhance a baseball player. Sure any athlete needs to be conditioned and have strength. But I believe that longer, leaner muscles will enhance an athlete more than power-lifting muscles. In a classic swing, incredible size is not that important. If you don't have a classic swing, if you have more of an arm swing, size is essential. An example of this type of swing might be Harmon Killebrew's swing. However, with the classic, smooth swing I feel it is more important to have strong forearms rather than strong biceps and triceps, which steroids would enhance. The forearms need to be strong to allow the wrists to work quickly, explosively. Prime examples of this type of swing would Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and, in today's game, Gary Sheffield. Each of these guys would flick their wrists at the last instant before impact to give the most acceleration through impact. And face it, home runs follow Newton's F=ma equation of Force = mass times acceleration. And acceleration of the bat can be most effective with explosive wrist action. Barry Bonds has this type of swing. It is compact and only explosive at impact. I don't think steroids would enhance that type of swing. It may seem like larger muscles make more power but lets look at the numbers (6' 0" 180 lb.; 6' 1" 180 lb.; 5' 11" 180 lb.; 5' 9" 170 lb.; 6' 0" 188 lb.; 6' 1" 195 lb.; 6' 3" 205 lb.). These heights and weights don't seem to be incredibly large or incredibly muscular as a physique that steroids would give. But they are the heights and weights of Aaron, Banks, Mays, Ott, Palmeiro, F. Robinson and Ted Williams, respectively. These are all 500 home run hitters. Only one is over 200 lbs and that is the 6' 3" Ted Williams. This is why I feel that steroids might have little effect on hitting home runs. These guys aren't large comparatively and they hit the ball with the best of them. I know there may be exceptions. But when you watch Rafael Palmeiro swing and the power he generates you can see that it is the acceleration of the bat at the last instant. If not for that explosive release the ball would go nowhere. Instead, it rockets off his bat. I don't think steroids would do a thing to enhance his explosiveness. And, from the list of wrist hitters that I mentioned above, I do think it's possible that steroids may have a negligible effect on their home runs. One last comment, the argument that "Why would so many try it if it doesn't work?' doesn't necessarily hold true. If you are a golfer you know that millions of golfers used to wear a copper wrist band to enhance their golf game. Why? I don't see that having an effect unless it is psychological. But millions tried it and whoever thought that up went laughing all the way to the bank. The fact is people will try anything and if they think it works they will continue doing it whether it helps or not. Cy

Archive

05-14-2004, 09:22 AM

Posted By: Judge DredI'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that one of the reasons that people like baseball is because of the statistics. Hank Aaron - (7) x 30HR, (8) x 40HR and no 50+HR seasons - High = 47 in 23 seasons. Willie Mays - (5) x 30HR, (4) x 40HR and (2) x 50HR seasons - High = 52 in 22 seasons. Teddy Ballgame - (7) x 30HR, (1) x 40HR and (0) 50HR seasons - High = 43 in 19 seasons. Mel Ott - (7) x 30HR, (1) x 40HR and (0) 50HR seasons - High = 42 in 22 seasons. Frank Robinson - (10) x 30HR, (1) x 40HR and (0) 50HR seasons - High = 49 in 21 seasons. I would guess that none of those players juiced up because it wasn't something that was done "back in the day". Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds probably had the same natural ability to whip that bat around as the above listed greats did, but if you look at them from the time that they started their careers and now you will see a freakish difference in size and muscle mass. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and just guess that "maybe" those guys took a shot now and then. I don't believe that steroids by themselves will give a player the ability to jack the ball. What I believe is that if a player already has the ability to jack the ball then the roids will only enhance that ability. If you can't jack one out already then roids probably wont help too much. I don't think that roids will enhance your hand eye coordination. I'm sure that roids will give a player the ability to generate much more bat speed. I bet there are a few guys out there (on this board) that used to play ball and I would venture to guess that if any of them did a lot of weight training they will atest to the fact that when they were training hard with weights they had a little more "umph" on their swings. Those that had the ability to go yard probably felt it even more.

Archive

05-14-2004, 05:20 PM

Posted By: warshawlawOne of the posts touched on a point that I've often argued with respect to Bonds and McGwire. Watching these guys over the years, one thing I noticed was that their swings quieted down over the years, became more efficient. Besides the hand-eye, the key to making a baseball soar is to meet it with maximum force at the point of impact so as to transfer the most energy to the ball and put on an underspin (Bernouli's equation, I think, proves that lift comes from air moving across an object at a different rate on top and bottom. Same concept explains why an overhand curve snaps downwards--topspin--and why a sidearm pitch runs--sidespin). Sounds simple enough, but it isn't. I'm 6'3, 245# and very strong, but I can't hit a ball 400' to save my life. I also can't drive a golf ball anywhere near as far as my much smaller brother in law (who is a golf nut). A dog***t baseball player like me is all over the place when he swings the bat--the energy that channels into the ball is a fraction of the energy I expend in moving to meet the ball. Watch McGwire and Bonds later versus earlier in their careers: they move with much more efficiency in the later years. Less wasted energy. Williams had the same thing, a smooth sleek stroke, only he had it as a rookie and never lost it. Maybe they trained with steroids or other enhancers that added muscle to their frames, but they had to learn how to use the muscles. One more point re Bonds: I do not believe that he will ever hit 60 or even 55 again, and it has nothing to do with steroids. He just isn't going to see the pitches again unless he gets some serious protection hitting behind him.

Archive

05-14-2004, 11:26 PM

Posted By: Judge DredI think fluid mechanics probably comes into play when a Bonds bomb hits the water... or if one of Bonds line drives hits a pitcher in the stomach - I guess you could calculate just how fast the vomit will exit the pitchers esophagus based on the the differential volume of the pitchers air duct in relation to his intestines and don't forget to calculate the pressure exerted on the pitchers stomach as the ball nails him... one last variable, what did the pitcher eat and drink prior to the game...

Archive

05-19-2004, 10:42 AM

Posted By: JoelHey guys, Lets not lose site of these facts for more home runs. The pitching mound is lower. There are more teams, therefore fewer better pitchers. The ball parks are smaller. Players stay in shape all year round. There is better methods of manufacturing a baseball bat. The handles are thinner and the barrells are bigger allowing the bat head to travel faster thru the strike zone. And finally, there are better manufacturing techniques for a baseball. The core of the baseball has changed and tightened over the years. I agree that steriods make up a some of the difference in this era of more home runs, but not all of it. Joel