Steriods can make one recover faster, enabling one to become stronger and faster (run, hit for power). Tangentially this would impact the others as well - the faster you are the more balls you can get to (field), the stronger you are the harder you can hit the ball so more grounders get through the infield (hit)...throw, well, I've really got nothing on throw. General argument is as follows: premise #1: Steriods make you a better baseball player. premise #2: Average baseball players are cheaper in the marketplace. conclusion: Average baseball players given steroids would then be both better and cheaper. It seems you are arguing premise #1 which is fine. Then I might ask why the uproar over steroids to begin with? Roids give the an edge, but don't completely redefine a player's game/natural abilities. if matt murton took roids, he wouldn't turn into a speed demon with a canon arm. you can't defy genetics. there are natural limits placed on the effectiveness of steroids. fielding takes a lot more than footspeed (which is minimally effected by roids...fractions of a second on a 40 yard dash time). instinct and talent don't come from a pill or an injection. there are many players with the same/similar abilities, and any little advantage will cost someone their job...and the many years of effort to get their spot in the show. i don't view steroids as cheating the fans, rather as cheating the players who play it clean. there are only so many big league roster spots and the guys who play it clean get shafted.