[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Karl Mattson

I dunno - does it? Everything I've read suggests that steroids may help pitchers endurance-wise but not as much performance-wise. The big names entangled in the steroids scandal have been predominantly hitters - some of the big hitters of the last 20 years - but most of the pitchers named have had pretty ordinary careers.

When Bonds, et al were (allegedly) doing steroids, it's my understanding/belief that they were "enhanced" virtually every at bat, for entire seasons or stretches of several consecutive seasons. Do you think virtually every pitcher they faced was using steroids? Do you think, of the pitchers that were, that they were on the same kind of sophisticated, intense regimen that Bonds was (apparently) on?

Or is it more likely that Bonds was souped-up 100% of the time, while he faced 'roids-using pitchers just 1/5 to 1/3 of the time, and with some or maybe most of those pitchers just dabbling, experimenting or part-timing?

My guess is that if batters and pitchers were both using steroids 100% of the time, the advantage would still go greatly to the hitter. And I don't believe for a minute that 100% of pitchers were users, so if Sosa or A-Rod used all season long, I think they had huge advantages. A level field was improbable if not impossible.

I'm also in the camp that doesn't find steroids in any way comparable to the kinds of cheating baseball has seen throughout history. Finding a cheat that enables you to hit 10-20 more home runs a season, and produce 15-45 more runs for your team, is just huge.

A very solid post Karl!