The Actual Top 20 Lifetime HR Leaders (OT)

[GregMitch34]

I am among those who have always come down hard on PEDs so I did a lifetime HR list if you take the (biggest) cheaters out. (See link below.) Yeah, I know, that even without PEDs a Bonds or McGwire might have made list if he stayed clean but--tough luck.

I'll also note that I really miss the days of olde...going back to my boyhood in latter part of 1950s--when you'd get excited when anyone had about 27 HRs by July 4 (like Abreu today) and have a shot at the Babe or later Roger. Now it's ruined--unless we can get consensus that 61 is still the record...

http://bit.ly/1jrAYmV

[clydepepper]

I almost totally agree, but want to believe in Pujols

Either way, it's still Bad Henry's Crown

[GregMitch34]

Funny Chris Davis plunge this year, no?

[Jim65]

I don't know for a fact that all those players are clean. Only they know for sure.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Funny Chris Davis plunge this year, no?

1.) Chris Davis' "plunge" started during the second half of last season
2.) Davis has spent time on the DL due to an oblique injury. Such injuries affect swings and zap power.
3.) American League pitchers have figured out that Davis' power is limited to inside fastballs. The majority of the pitches he has seen are low and outside....where he is prone to chase
4.) Davis has been far less selective this season.

Far more convincing reasons than steroid speculation.

[ATP]

In regards to the opening paragraph of the list, if Jr. isn't clean than I don't know if anyone from that era was...or at least I hope that is the case.

[GregMitch34]

Junior averaged 52 HRs a year for 4 years--at peak of steroid era. Hardly anyone in history had ever done that, pre-1990s. Just saying.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by ATP

In regards to the opening paragraph of the list, if Jr. isn't clean than I don't know if anyone from that era was...or at least I hope that is the case.

In my opinion, I have always thought Junior was juicing. Not right away, but after some of these other guys started pulling away. It's sad because he had such a sweet swing. He put on serious muscle and then late in his career started falling apart like all the other guys whose bodies couldn't handle all the unnatural muscle packed on. It is what it is, but I would bet serious money Griffey was on it and he didn't have to be. 5 tool player before that.

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

Junior averaged 52 HRs a year for 4 years--at peak of steroid era. Hardly anyone in history had ever done that, pre-1990s. Just saying.

Griffey Jr. was an amazing talent in a potent lineup who put up those numbers at a small dome. He also got injured. A lot. Aren't PEDs supposed to aid in quick recovery?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

1.) Chris Davis' "plunge" started during the second half of last season
2.) Davis has spent time on the DL due to an oblique injury. Such injuries affect swings and zap power.
3.) American League pitchers have figured out that Davis' power is limited to inside fastballs. The majority of the pitches he has seen are low and outside....where he is prone to chase
4.) Davis has been far less selective this season.

Far more convincing reasons than steroid speculation.

I agree. I don't think Davis is a steroid user. I live just outside of Arlington, so I got a chance to see Davis play for the Rangers. He's shown this same power ever since he was called up to the Majors. He hit 38 home runs in his first 686 at bats over two seasons. The problem is the Rangers never used him as a full-time player.

Davis is going through the same thing Ryan Braun has been battling most of the season. First, Braun had the thumb injury, which was bad enough, because it meant he couldn't tell how tightly he was gripping the handle. His thumb has been black and blue on and off. Then he suffered an oblique injury, and he's still battling it. He's not able to pull the ball like he normally can because of it. All of his hits right now are going to right or right center field. Eventually, those will heal, and both Davis and Braun will see their power numbers jump back up. For now, at least Braun is still being productive, as he's driven in 49 runs despite missing 16 games on the DL.

[Fred]

I think a lot of people look at Grif Jr. and Pujols as sacred cows that they don't want to believe ever to a PED. Both are/were very talented but who knows for sure if they used PEDs, only they know for sure. Bonds would have hit 500HRs without the juice, too bad he now holds the records for season and lifetime HRs.

Hey, where's Crime Dog on that top 20 list?

[clydepepper]

By the way, I do not own cards of anybody I believe to have used.

I do, however, own plenty of Jr. Griffey and Thome

...and that goes for pitchers too...don't own any Clemens cards, but I have a lot of Pedro!

Just trying to keep integrity in my hobby.

hope this thread gets some book sales for you, Greg

[71buc]

I watched Jr. from day one of his career in Seattle. He played the game the right way. He never had the second prime of a Barry Bonds. Was he a petulant Prima Donna, absolutely, a juicer, no way. This is the danger of PEDs everybody is suspected even without evidence. When you compare Griffey to a known steroid user like Sosa according to www.baseball-reference.com you can see that Sosa compared well to some above average players. However from age 32 through 38 he was comparable to a future HOF member named Griffey Junior. Junior is the only HOF caliber player Sosa compares to at any age. Other than a juiced Sosa, and Cedeno, who posted ridiculous numbers early in his career, Junior was comparable to the legends of the game throughout his career at virtually every age . If you give PEDs to an above average player he will perform like a PEDs legend. You give them to an supremely talented and genetically gifted athlete like Bonds and you create a monster.


Most Similar by Ages Sosa

21. Jack Clark (972) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Lloyd Moseby (967) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Chili Davis (961) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Curt Blefary (967) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Jim Wynn (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Jim Wynn (947) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Tony Conigliaro (952) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Dale Murphy (937) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Darryl Strawberry (949) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Jose Canseco (914) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Dale Murphy (895) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Ken Griffey (867) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Ken Griffey (908) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Ken Griffey (915) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Ken Griffey (906) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Ken Griffey (904) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Ken Griffey (869) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Most Similar by Ages Griffey

21. Mickey Mantle (960) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
22. Cesar Cedeno (955) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
23. Mickey Mantle (936) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24. Mickey Mantle (935) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25. Miguel Cabrera (957) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26. Frank Robinson (954) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27. Frank Robinson (944) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28. Frank Robinson (919) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29. Frank Robinson (906) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30. Frank Robinson (916) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31. Frank Robinson (923) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32. Frank Robinson (915) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
33. Sammy Sosa (908) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34. Sammy Sosa (915) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
35. Sammy Sosa (906) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
36. Sammy Sosa (904) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
37. Frank Robinson (886) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
38. Frank Robinson (887) * 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

[MattyC]

With regard to the slight and implication on Griffey above... I think that's one heck of an unfair leap-- with no hard evidence-- to besmirch such a great player. Talent, hard work, and advances in training, nutrition, and sports medicine can also lead to high achievement. Some fans see PED use behind so many players. What about guys like Koufax or Molitor who had seemingly anomalous spikes in performance; perhaps they found some miracle edge, as well? I just think it makes no sense to sweepingly blanket-erase everyone from an entire era. I surmise by the same logic that Boggs juiced in 87 as well, and the list of boogeymen can go on. And I'm not even a Griffey fan. I think it really hamstrings one's credibility, if one is willing to besmirch a player based merely on being present and doing well in that era. If that's all the criteria it takes to be branded a PED user...

[GregMitch34]

Yeah, we heard that 15 years ago from people who doubted PED use--attributing HR records to "hard work, and advances in training, nutrition, and sports medicine." How did that hold up? Same "advances" today but HR totals dwindled. Again, Griffey HRs spiked at exact time we saw it from known PED users. We used to be told that Piazza was not a suspect either and then a lot of circumstantial evidence came out and it's hurt his Hall chances. Again: no proof but a taint.

And, no, PEDs tend to cause later injuries, not heal them.

Really, comparing Koufax's "spike" to players to PED era? Really?

[3-2-count]

Originally Posted by Fred

Hey, where's Crime Dog on that top 20 list?

Mcgriff should definitely be mentioned here. His 493 career HR's tie him with Gehrig who is shown on the list!

[Piratedogcardshows]

On another note. I suppose Steve Carlton is still the career leader in K's since the top three on the list more than likely used roids.

[GregMitch34]

You care to cite Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson evidence on steroids?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Koufax had frequent injections of cortisone (a steroid) in his elbow. Is it different when a doctor prescribes it?

[MattyC]

The "evidence" presented in this thread against Griffey is just not at all impressive and convincing. Seriously, if that's all the logic and proof one needs to smear someone's achievements, why watch any pro baseball after the mid 1980's? It's a bitter, cynical, and unfortunate prism through which to view things.

So, a spike in the roid era means roid usage. But a spike before the known steroid era means clean and earned achievement? As any player will concede, there were always performance enhancers of one type or another in each era, things players took for "an edge." So let's just be fair and not consider players from a past era sacrosanct and divine, and anyone with a spike in the steroid era guilty. It should still come down to innocent until proven guilty, and mere suspicion cannot be enough to erase someone from the record books. This does mean some guilty but unproven parties will skate, but better that than an innocent party be ruined by mere suspicion alone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Griffey's career had a pretty normal trajectory. Wouldn't you expect him to peak in his late 20s?

[ksabet]

I am on the other side of this argument. I am a little bit younger but I still never understood the lack of acceptance in the evolution of sports. I have always felt athletes should be judged based on how they played against others of the same era. It is impossible to compare Ruth to Bonds PEDs or not.

Should we come up with a list of pre 162 games home run leaders as well? Or categorize every time the mound was changed or every time strike zone was altered. Maybe we should figure out the true home run leaders based on their home ball parks.

PEDs was part of the game for a while whether we like it or not.

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Griffey's career had a pretty normal trajectory. Wouldn't you expect him to peak in his late 20s?

I'm with you all the way on that one, Peter.

[GregMitch34]

By your logic all players are equally suspect--whether in an era where massive enhancers such as steroids and HGH not known to be used to an era where we know it was rampant? No difference, right?

As for cortisone as a PED--that's laughable. Just seems like a desperate attempt to defend players from recent years.

As for Griffey--I never said there was any strong evidence. On the other hand, those who say there's no chance, absolutely, may be going too far.

[glynparson]

I always find this funny cheating has was and always will be a part of professional sports. If just popping a pill made one an all star why are so many also rans and bench warmers getting caught. Non of this bothers me as much as acting like guys competing against just a segment of the population makes them some how superior.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

By the way, I do not own cards of anybody I believe to have used.

I do, however, own plenty of Jr. Griffey and Thome

...and that goes for pitchers too...don't own any Clemens cards, but I have a lot of Pedro!

Just trying to keep integrity in my hobby.

hope this thread gets some book sales for you, Greg

Forensic analysis of baseball cards is one way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[GregMitch34]

The argument that players should just be compared to others in their era is fair--if the playing field, so to speak, is level. But it's not when, let's say, half of the stars are cheating and the other half not. So yes, you could say--Barry Bonds was a somewhat better slugger than Sammy Sosa. And on the unproven side, you could say Jim Thome was a somewhat better slugger than Fred McGriff. To me it's sad that this is the only valid measure. Others don't seem to be bothered by it.

As for Griffey having a "normal career trajectory"--true, he peaked in what should be his peak age. But no one before the PED era except the Babe ever averaged 52 HRs a year for four years, during those peak years, as Griffey did. And then he fell apart with one injury after another, starting when he was only in his early '30s--which didn't happen with most of the previous superstars.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Are amphetamines PEDs? Or only drugs that build muscle?

[MattyC]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

By your logic all players are equally suspect--whether in an era where massive enhancers such as steroids and HGH not known to be used to an era where we know it was rampant? No difference, right?

No, that's respectfully not my position. By my logic it just takes much more than mere elite performance in the steroid era to cast aspersion on a great player, as is the case with Griffey and some others.

I believe each era had its own performance enhancers, which gave those who took them an edge over those who did not. Amphetamines, for example, definitely improve performance; many took them in the pre-steroid era. I believe players who take officially banned substances should face the strictest punishments available.

[GregMitch34]

Amphetamines do little to improve performance--beyond getting you "back on the field" and "up for the game." Of course, they still should have been rooted out but you don't see odd years for hitting in the 1970s and 1980s pre-steroids. Ironically, that was the argument used to defend steroids (McGwire and others said this)--they only help them "recover from injuries" faster and "get them back on the field." I guess they had nothing to do with the routine 50 to 70 home run years.

[dabigyankeeman]

Steroids artificially enchance your abilities. How about Lasik eye surgery? That totally artificially enhances your ability to see, it makes you like a bionic man. You usually no longer need glasses (and all the problems they bring like sweat and condensation), and sometimes your vision is way better than it would ever be normally.

How about Tommy John surgery? You are totally artificially moving stuff around in the body and creating a bionic arm with something that was not supposed to be there in the first place.

Lets face it, with those and other new legal drugs, the players of today have tremendous ways to make their bodies better than the players of years ago.

I also believe that a very high pct of players in the steroid era were on something, steroids, testosterone, HGH, etc. Way more than people think.

Its very tough for us to make a judgement as who is good or "clean" and who isnt. Soon, drugs will be developed that will be virtually un-detectable.

And now what about this latest story about A-Rod being allowed to use certain drugs by MLB???

To me, put everyone with the right numbers in the HOF, and if you want, put a line at the bottom that this player played in the steroid era.

[MattyC]

In a hypothetical scenario, what if a big HR like one by Maris or Mantle in 1961, or a great hot week by a Frank Robinson in his triple crown year or a Carew in his .388 year-- what if any of those feats was the result in part of amphetamine usage?

The point regarding amphetamines is not to compare their degree of effect to modern drugs. The point is that an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage; the degree of advantage is a separate issue.

Then there is also the issue of whether a substance was or wasn't on a "banned list" when taken.

Each fan will have their own view on these complex topics and how to parse players' achievements between eras, and of course to each his own.

Ultimately, for this baseball fan, the salient point here is that the era and the potency of its drugs should not lower the level of proof needed to cast aspersion on a man's achievements.

In essence the underpinning logic there would be that the performance alone is evidence of guilt; and with there being PEDs of one form or another in each era, that same logic opens a door to saying any player in any era with elite performance was on the PEDs of his time. Hence my objection to lumping Griffey in with those who have either admitted to taking steroids or failed drug tests.

[clydepepper]

As for Griffey having a "normal career trajectory"--true, he peaked in what should be his peak age. But no one before the PED era except the Babe ever averaged 52 HRs a year for four years, during those peak years, as Griffey did. And then he fell apart with one injury after another, starting when he was only in his early '30s--which didn't happen with most of the previous superstars.[/QUOTE]


Griffey's injuries did not occur just to age and normal wear and tear. He broke his wrist early on due to the way he played his position which is one of the most physically demanding positions anyway you play it. The late-career leg injuries were all the results of effort, not 'coming down' off something. Accumulating injuries almost always come with age...unless you're chemically altered.

Griffey and bonds had almost exactly the same advantages (over Aaron and Mays, etc.), but Griffey took the road less traveled, the (morally) right one.

[Piratedogcardshows]

Originally Posted by GregMitch34

You care to cite Nolan Ryan and Randy Johnson evidence on steroids?

I have the same proof you have to accuse some of the players you mentioned. Just a glance at some stats and a feeling.

Nolan Ryan had 1 200 inning season from Age 36-39
Nolan Ryan had 4 200 inning seasons from Age 40-43

Plus classic roid rage in the Ventura Fight!

The whole steroids make you recover from injuries quicker and get back on the field makes me think of Cal's consecutive games streak. But I digress.....

[clydepepper]

It is obvious that part of the discussion lends itself to a player's popularity.

However, very few would seriously consider a comparison between bonds* and RIPKEN or between Clemens* and RYAN to have any merit whatsoever.

And as far as the Ventura BEATDOWN w/ NUGGIES, Nolan is an active rancher and was just channeling his other work skills.

[brewing]

Any chance the ball was juiced?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Randy Johnson was only a slightly above average pitcher until he turned 28 or so and then had a spectacular rise which lasted to a ripe old age. So let's convict him too.

[clydepepper]

Right after his famous meeting with Nolan Ryan....hmmm....LOL

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by brewing

Any chance the ball was juiced?

I firmly believe it was. I still vividly remember all the "Chicks dig the long ball" commercials with Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine in the mid-late 1990s. I'm convinced MLB juiced the baseballs to get fans back after the 1994 strike. They wanted players to hit more homeruns, since it was exciting and created more fan interest, i.e., money flooding MLB's coffers.

Steve

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Steve D

They wanted players to hit more homeruns, since it was exciting and created more fan interest, i.e., money flooding MLB's coffers.

Whether balls were juiced or not (I definitely don't discount juiced balls, especially in 1987), I agree, baseball absolutely wanted more HRs. Baseball profited immensly during this era, and attendance and TV viewership (mainly local cable) numbers have never really lost the gains made during that late '90s.

As a life long fan/player/etc, I didn't really like the juiced up, high scoring style of play during the roid era.. but clearly the bulk of fans, and the always important "casual fan" really did. Seeing the premium on speed, gloves, and in game tactics evaporate in lieu of a bloop and a bomb, or just a few bombs, bothered me. I'm glad baseball is back to looking more like the baseball I grew up with. There's still more power than the '80s, which admittedly is nice, but we still see a lot of 3-2, 2-1, 1-0 games. Pitching is strong and there seems to be an influx of speedy top of the order and/or glove first types making their way back into the game.

As for the person who mentioned Ryan and Ripken, I've been suspiscious of both. Not that there's any damning evidence, nor am I making accusations, but it does annoy me when fans/media put certain players on a pedastal of immunity, while seeming intent on destroying others. I get that some guys (like Bonds) opened themselves to increased scrutiny by being unfriendly to the press, but please, are those in the press really so thin skinned?? Bonds for one grew up watching the press turn on his dad, and seeing his dad eventually become an alcoholic. Not that I give a pass for any number of other things he did, but I had no problem with his being surly and untrusting toward those in media. The media in general has done a lot more damage to players and their families than players have done to them.

Anyway, back to the steroid era, something that really bothers me is that MLB, its owners, and gutless commissioner profited greatly, and still do to this day. However they receive very little scrutiny over the era and how it unfolded. The public responsibility seems to fall squarely on the shoulders of players... and inordanitely on Bonds', Clemens' shoulders, as compared to loveable types like Big Papi and others. If Selig (see no evil, hear no evil as long a profits are coming in, or as long as Henry Aaron's record is not in jeopardy) is eventually enshrined in Cooperstown, I'll vomit. IMO, he and baseball should bare far more criticism for not taking any true steps to fight proliferation of steroids until long after public and governemnt sentiment demanded they do so.

[irishdenny]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

1.) Chris Davis' "plunge" started during the second half of last season
2.) Davis has spent time on the DL due to an oblique injury. Such injuries affect swings and zap power.
3.) American League pitchers have figured out that Davis' power is limited to inside fastballs. The majority of the pitches he has seen are low and outside....where he is prone to chase
4.) Davis has been far less selective this season.

Far more convincing reasons than steroid speculation.

I'm not a BiG PED Hater, David Schoenfield of ESPN Seems to have Mr Chris Davis somewhat figured out.
I don't believe that Mr Davis is a PED Guy...
I believe in STATS, Otherwise Guys like Cobb wouldn't be in the Hall.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/po...th-chris-davis

However, Since this game has begun Players have looked for an Edge, And We as Fan's Majority Have Always Rooted for them oN.
And my opinion is Who ever is in the Books 100 years from Now,
"Will be in the Books!" And that's what Really Will Matters...

Players PED's usage will be talked about as mush as Cobb's Anger issue's!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scoring is overrated. Look at the excitement of a 2-1 or 1-0 baseball or soccer or hockey game. Or for that matter any relatively low scoring basketball game compared to the alternative.

[packs]

Good list.

Very surprised people think Griffey juiced. All you had to do was see him swing and you already knew how good he was.

Was Ralph Kiner juicing too? He averaged 52 home runs per 162 games from 1947 to 1950.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

I don't care who people "think" juiced. I am curious about evidence about players that might have juiced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maris only had two other seasons above 30. Not quite Brady Anderson, but pretty aberrational. Nobody questions his 61 however. The point being, if Maris can hit 61, why can't Griffey (a supremely talented player) average 50 for a few years without raising suspicions?

[packs]

I think playing alongside Mantle during that season was what enabled Maris to accomplish what he did. He had Mantle right behind him to push him. Everyone plays better around heightened competition. I don't think Maris ever does what he did if it weren't for Mantle's competition.

After 1961 he was essentially finished. The season took so much out of him so I'm not surprised he never again came close, despite being only 26 years old when he broke the record.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I always liked this photo.

[sniffy5]

Pujols has always looked the same: huge. My personal belief is that he has been taking illegal substances for his entire career. I know all of us sooooo want to believe our favorite players are clean, but it's probably just not the case. The fact is that PED use was, and probably still is, encouraged by agents, coaches, managers, and MLB (and the NFL). Many of us work out regularly. There's a reason we don't look like Pujols, Clemens, Ray Lewis, et al. And if someone told me to rub some cream on my arms that will never be detected in a test, and I'll get so good that I'd land a 125 million dollar contract, I'd do it too.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scoring is overrated. Look at the excitement of a 2-1 or 1-0 baseball or soccer or hockey game. Or for that matter any relatively low scoring basketball game compared to the alternative.

Not sure if this was in response to my post, but if so, that's how I feel. I love seeing relatively low scoring, sub 3 hour baseball games again (though ESPN broadcasts always seem to add 45 min to 1 hr). These seem to be the norm for Giants games at AT&T, and were very much so during their two WS runs.

In regards to Griffey, I'd like to think he was clean, but have no idea how anyone besides him can say that with any certainty. Braun "looked clean" too- wirey strong with a beautiful swing. Baseball/Selig/Players Union didn't test, so aside from the health reasons, there was no disincentive for players to use. To the point of health risks, I think if players were being 100% honest (especially in that era), it would be startling to see how many in the prime of their lives would be willing to trade long term health for present day success and $$$.

Pujols is also very suspect to me, not only for his appearance, but how prevelent usage was in both the minors and majors when he burst onto the scene. It would be great to have hard evidence to determine who used and who didn't, but short of confessions I don't think we ever will for a majority of them. There were/will be a few high profile guys the government and media will spend countless hours and money to go after, but most of the rest will probably need to test positive to get busted.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by glynparson

I always find this funny cheating has was and always will be a part of professional sports. If just popping a pill made one an all star why are so many also rans and bench warmers getting caught. Non of this bothers me as much as acting like guys competing against just a segment of the population makes them some how superior.

There was a really good SI article a few years ago, that related to this. Steroids didn't turn everyone into all stars, but it made a lot of players perform better - players who shouldn't have made the majors barely made it, keeping non-cheaters in the minors, which is what the article was about. Few were noticing the huge improvement of such players, because they ended up being lower-tier major leaguers;instead, everyone focused on good players who all of a sudden found unreal batting power.