Steroids: Hitters and Pitchers

[Wilson A2000]

As we learned more about the steroid era, many have noted that hitters and pitchers were both juicing. But now that most steroids seem to be out of the game, pitchers are having their best years (especially 2010) - possibly due to the lack of roided hitters. Were fewer pitchers juicing than we thought? Was there a breakdown on the Mitchell report of how many pitchers vs. how many hitters were juicing in relation to how many hitters and pitchers there are in the league?

[Pushfrog98]

It's probably a combination of that and the gunk pitchers keep on the bill of their cap.

[Soul]

Pitchers: roiding to heal up.

 

Hitters: roiding to heal up, but also to increase power.

 

Maybe there's that imbalance between the expected benefits of juicing depending on if you are a hitter or a pitcher. Just a wild guess.

[jersey cubs fan]

pitchers throw every 5 days, position players play every day. Stimulants have been banned.

[SouthSideRyan]

Off the top of my head, I'd imagine pitchers who bulked up would have a higher attrition rate than hitters due to the stress throwing a baseball puts on your arm, compared to swinging a bat and running the bases.

[champaignchris]

pitchers throw every 5 days, position players play every day.

 

Bingo. If we assume x% of players were roided up and that number was even between batters, starters, relievers, then x% of roided up batters would be playing every day, while only x% of every starting pitcher is roided in a given game and there would be only an x% chance that the relief pitcher being brought in was on roids.

 

Thus, if x=25, two batters in every game were on roids, while the batters were facing a roided starting pitcher only once every four games, and a roided relief pitcher for an inning or two every other game.

 

Regardless of what the actual percentage was, unless significantly more pitchers than hitters were doping, cheating hitters would have a more significant effect on the game.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't believe that's what jersey was saying. He was talking about recovery time without the aid of stimulants.

[lumafia]

There are other things at play other than just steroids. One thing that can be quantified is the type of pitches that are being thrown by pitchers compared to what was being thrown 10 years ago. According to fangraphs, the % of offspeed pitches, and variety of offspeed pitches, have increased over the last 10 years. Pitchers are becoming more balanced with the different types of pitches they are throwing, and are getting better at throwing those pitches. In general, pitchers are throwing fewer fastballs and curveballs, and more sliders, cutters and change-ups. Based on the inherent advantage of pitching as it relates to the game of baseball, even a slight improvement in pitching can have an exponential effect on offenses.

[Careless]

In his autobiography, Canseco claims that he improved the productivity of his teammates by introducing them to steroids. Using panel data on baseball players, we show that a player’s performance increases significantly after they played with Jose Canseco. After checking 30 comparable players from the same era, we find that no other baseball player produced a similar effect.

http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/gould/canseco_nov_11_2007.pdf

Not exactly on topic, but an interesting claim.

Gould and Kaplan found that contact with Canseco was worth an extra two home runs per year in the seasons that followed. Canseco's teammates also saw increases in other power statistics—half a dozen extra runs batted in per season, a one-point boost to slugging percentage, and a handful of additional walks. Meanwhile Canseco did not seem to help teammates in their fielding, base-stealing, and other nonpower areas. (In results not reported in the study, Gould and Kaplan also found that pitchers were able to put in more innings when exposed to Canseco, another indication of The Chemist's hand in helping his teammates work harder and longer

http://www.slate.com/id/2262202/

[MSG T]

In his autobiography, Canseco claims that he improved the productivity of his teammates by introducing them to steroids. Using panel data on baseball players, we show that a player’s performance increases significantly after they played with Jose Canseco. After checking 30 comparable players from the same era, we find that no other baseball player produced a similar effect.

http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/gould/canseco_nov_11_2007.pdf

Not exactly on topic, but an interesting claim.

Gould and Kaplan found that contact with Canseco was worth an extra two home runs per year in the seasons that followed. Canseco's teammates also saw increases in other power statistics—half a dozen extra runs batted in per season, a one-point boost to slugging percentage, and a handful of additional walks. Meanwhile Canseco did not seem to help teammates in their fielding, base-stealing, and other nonpower areas. (In results not reported in the study, Gould and Kaplan also found that pitchers were able to put in more innings when exposed to Canseco, another indication of The Chemist's hand in helping his teammates work harder and longer

http://www.slate.com/id/2262202/

 

 

Hmm, and all this time I thought it was TLR and Duncan that had the pixie dust, when it was really Canseco?

[chuckywang]

What exactly makes this a "pitcher's year"?

 

Does anybody have overall stats for pitcher's this year that are statistically significantly better than previous years? I know it might have the illusion of a pitcher's year due to the number of no-hitters and perfect games and late game no-hitters that have occurred, but those might only be fringe cases that don't necessarily tip over the overall pitching stats.

[Clem Fandango]

What exactly makes this a "pitcher's year"?

 

Homers are down and no-hitters are up, duh!

[jersey cubs fan]

What exactly makes this a "pitcher's year"?

 

Does anybody have overall stats for pitcher's this year that are statistically significantly better than previous years? I know it might have the illusion of a pitcher's year due to the number of no-hitters and perfect games and late game no-hitters that have occurred, but those might only be fringe cases that don't necessarily tip over the overall pitching stats.

 

Overall OPS is down from 750 to 734 (and down from the 760ish range a few years ago). ERA is down from the 4.25-4.50 range to 4.14. The K rate was in the 6's (per 9) and is now a little over 7.

[TruffleShuffle]

What exactly makes this a "pitcher's year"?

 

Homers are down and no-hitters are up, duh!

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/pitch.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/pitch.shtml

 

lowest runs allowed by NL and AL pitchers since 1992. so yes, relative to where we've been the past 15 or 20 years, it's a pitcher's year.

[chuckywang]

What exactly makes this a "pitcher's year"?

 

Homers are down and no-hitters are up, duh!

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/pitch.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/pitch.shtml

 

lowest runs allowed by NL and AL pitchers since 1992. so yes, relative to where we've been the past 15 or 20 years, it's a pitcher's year.

 

It's kind of funny. Comparing this year to pre-1992 baseball, this year would be considered a down year for pitchers. It definitely seems 'roids have helped hitters more than pitchers.

[Guest]

What exactly makes this a "pitcher's year"?

 

Homers are down and no-hitters are up, duh!

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/pitch.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/pitch.shtml

 

lowest runs allowed by NL and AL pitchers since 1992. so yes, relative to where we've been the past 15 or 20 years, it's a pitcher's year.

 

It's kind of funny. Comparing this year to pre-1992 baseball, this year would be considered a down year for pitchers. It definitely seems 'roids have helped hitters more than pitchers.

 

Greenies also, though that's kind of a no brainer.

[Sammy Sofa]

Greenies also, though that's kind of a no brainer.

 

I don't think it's nearly enough of a no-brainer. Personally, I think the absence of uppers is having much more of an impact on the offense over the years than cracking down on steroids.

[Careless]

Greenies also, though that's kind of a no brainer.

 

I don't think it's nearly enough of a no-brainer. Personally, I think the absence of uppers is having much more of an impact on the offense over the years than cracking down on steroids.

Are there many stimulants that last in the system long enough to effectively test urine for them, or are they doing hair tests?

[Sammy Sofa]

Greenies also, though that's kind of a no brainer.

 

I don't think it's nearly enough of a no-brainer. Personally, I think the absence of uppers is having much more of an impact on the offense over the years than cracking down on steroids.

Are there many stimulants that last in the system long enough to effectively test urine for them, or are they doing hair tests?

 

I honestly have no idea how they test for them.

[Careless]

In general, stimulants like cocaine wash out of the blood as they're metabolized and the resulting chemicals can't be seen. Steroids and THC are fat soluble, which I believe is the reason they stick around in the blood so long to be detected.

[mul21]

Greenies also, though that's kind of a no brainer.

 

I don't think it's nearly enough of a no-brainer. Personally, I think the absence of uppers is having much more of an impact on the offense over the years than cracking down on steroids.

 

I don't think this could be more accurate. I can't imagine the wear and tear the travel and every day grind puts on you body.

 

In general, stimulants like cocaine wash out of the blood as they're metabolized and the resulting chemicals can't be seen. Steroids and THC are fat soluble, which I believe is the reason they stick around in the blood so long to be detected.

 

 

That's true, but if you're taking them day after day, they're still going to be in your system and with the random testing that's done, the chances of getting popped would be pretty high.

[LeftCoastCubFan]

Interesting analysis:

 

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

 

SI Take on the above:

 

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/06/what-if-we-are-wrong-again-about-steroids/?eref=sihp

[chuckywang]

Interesting analysis:

 

http://steroids-and-baseball.com/

 

SI Take on the above:

 

http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/08/06/what-if-we-are-wrong-again-about-steroids/?eref=sihp

 

Very interesting indeed. I only read Posnanski's article and it seems he's outright dismissing steroids while not really backing it up with evidence having to do with steroids itself. I'm not saying I don't think his arguments have any validity, but he's gotta do a better job of backing them up.