The Steroidless Era

[hifigator]

I wrote this for a segment down here. I wanted to see what you all thought of my theory:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much was always said about the "steroid era," and how it ruined many records. The 60 homer mark of the Babe lasted some 40ish years. Then Maris finally topped it with 61 in 61. But his record lasted nearly 40 years. Then in a comparative second in time, that previous record was topped some half dozen or so times and by 3 different players! Additionally, it wasn't "topped, but actually shattered -- 66, 70, 73!

The alltime mark of 714 stood for decades until Hank Aaron was able to stay healthy enough and eventually supplant it by establishing 755 as the new mark. His mark also stood for a few decades, but eventually Mr. Bonds came along with his inflated hat and ego to match. Sure enough, the effects of the steroids were obvious. Now with the advent of testing for steroids along with harsh punishments, we have seen a dramatic and significant dropoff in offensive production. Everyone ties this to the huge dropoff in steroid use, and rightfully so. But one angle that I haven't heard anyone adress comes from the the other side of the battle. Some pitchers also seem to have benefitted from performance enhancing drugs, but at the plate, drug use was far more the rule than the exception. On the mound, just the opposite was true. Though we will never know exactly who used and who didn't, the impact of steroids was patently obvious.

That being said, I can't help but notice the jump in historic performances by pitchers today. The number of no-hitters as well as near misses is up dramatically. Perhaps more importantly, even in the post season we have seen performances for the ages -- one after the other, and from a wide ranging number of players.

Philadelphia Philly star Roy Halladay just pitched only the 2nd no-hitter in post season history.

Just a couple of days later, San Francisco Giant ace, Tim Lincecum hurlled an almost equally impressive masterpiece.

Not to be outdone, Cliff Lee continues to dominate in the post season in all 3 of his post season outings. He totally shattered Bob Gibson's standard of excellence and shows no signs of tiring anytime soon.

And the list goes on. Now you could argue that those three pithcers are phenoms that don't come around very often. That much is true, but still, to see such complete and total domination within such a short time from different pitchers is conspicuous to say the least. And it doesn't stop there. C.J. Wilson followed up Cliff Lee's first gem with one of his own. Roy Oswalt added his name to the list with a 13 strikeout shutout performance. Younger and less heralded pitchers from the Giants have also achieved greatness, and this against a Phillies lineup, considered by many to be the best in the league.

The bottom line is that we are seeing some tremendous pitching performances and for them to all come in a single post season is nothing short of amazing. Or is it? I have a feeling that the blossom of such performances isn't just random happenstance, but is in fact an evolution of the ending of the steroid era as we knew it. I'm not trying to take anything away from Halladay, Lincecum and others. But I just can't help but think that what we are seeing isn't merely the development of a couple of good arms, but rather an indication of the direction of the future. It is after all a cycle. We had the dead ball era. We had the juiced ball era. We had the advent of parks like Colorado's, where routine F7s turned into 3 run dingers. And of course we had the juiced players as well.

In similar fashion, I think what we see now is a similar "era." At least for a time, I think we are in the "steroidless" era.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HoyaFanNY]

george will, you are not.

[williambraskyiii]

tl; dr

[strummer8526]

STOP THE PRESSES! Hifi actually wrote something coherent and vaguely interesting. And I think I agree with it, too.

Responding to your point, I think it has to be correct. There's no way these pitching performances could have happened in the steroid era. And it makes me think: if the steroid era inflated offensive statistics such that the 500 home run club is no longer a lock for the Hall, shouldn't we also consider the inverse when looking at pitchers? Consider, for example, Mike Mussina. All time great? Doesn't look like it on paper. But then again, think about the era in which he pitched. It seems a tad hypocritical to say that the greatest hitters of the steroid era can't be considered among the best ever because they were probably cheating, but then at the same time hold pitchers of the era to the same statistical standards.

[TBird41]

Oct 22, 2010 9:13:13 GMT -5 strummer8526 said:

STOP THE PRESSES! Hifi actually wrote something coherent and vaguely interesting. And I think I agree with it, too.

Responding to your point, I think it has to be correct. There's no way these pitching performances could have happened in the steroid era. And it makes me think: if the steroid era inflated offensive statistics such that the 500 home run club is no longer a lock for the Hall, shouldn't we also consider the inverse when looking at pitchers? Consider, for example, Mike Mussina. All time great? Doesn't look like it on paper. But then again, think about the era in which he pitched. It seems a tad hypocritical to say that the greatest hitters of the steroid era can't be considered among the best ever because they were probably cheating, but then at the same time hold pitchers of the era to the same statistical standards.

Pedro Martinez' 1999 Postseason: 17IP, 0.00 ERA, 23 K, 0.67 WHIP

Greg Maddux's 1999 Postseason: 28IP, 2.25 ERA, 17 K, 1.29 WHIP

Curt Schilling 2001 Postseason: 48.1IP, 1.12 ERA, 56 K, 0.64 WHIP

Mike Hampton 2000 Postseason: 27.1IP, 2.96 ERA, 18 K, 1.28 WHIP

Roy Halladay 2010 Postseason: 22IP 2.45 ERA, 20 K, 0.77 WHIP

Other thoughts:

1) Don't agree with Hifi. It's a trap

2) How do you know that Mike Mussina wasn't on steroids? How do you know that steroids didn't let him throw the ball harder, throw more innings, etc

3) How do you know that Halladay, Lee, CJ Wilson, Oswalt, Jonathon Sanchez, etc aren't on steroids?

4) No one knows how much of the offensive explosion was due to steroids. There are a lot of other factors that everyone forgets, such as smaller ball parks, smaller strike zones, harder baseballs, expansion, etc.

[SFHoya99]

Thank you ,TBird. Saved me the freaking effort.

[sleepyjackson21]

For the most part i agree with Tbird and SF. However, i also wanted to point out that homeruns per game, hits per game, runs per game are all at or near two decade lows. Lots of factors of why that is but steroids or lack there of has had some impact.

[SFHoya99]

Oct 22, 2010 12:31:28 GMT -5 sleepyjackson21 said:

For the most part i agree with Tbird and SF. However, i also wanted to point out that homeruns per game, hits per game, runs per game are all at or near two decade lows. Lots of factors of why that is but steroids or lack there of has had some impact.

it may have had an impact. So may have the fact that the last few ballparks built have largely been pitcher's parks (like Citi) or saw a huge drop in offense this year (Yankee Stadium after they demolished the old one, supposedly changing the wind patterns). Also, the west coast was ridiculously cold all summer.

Then there's natural talent changes -- there's a ton of good, young pitching out there. Sometimes there's natural cycles.

The sabermetric "community" has largely pooh-poohed the effect of steroids. I disagree with them on this -- I hate that most of them have moved from "we don't know the amount of effect of steroids" to "I can't quanitfy it, so it did nothing."

That's horsecrap. It did something, I'm sure.

But I also think its crazy to chalk up individual games or even seasons to one cause. And it might be a little crazy for people to think that just because they are testing for 'roids, no one is using HGH or designer drugs.

[SirSaxa]

Not sure how or if it relates to this thread, but for me the most amazing stats of all belong to Mariano Rivera - especially in the Post Season. His career, stretching from 1995 to today, he's pitched 132 Post season innings in 93 games, and has a 0.71 ERA, an 8-1 record, and 42 saves. He's given up 2 homers, 21 walks and has 109 K's. Oh... and 3 wild pitches. Much of that time, of course, was during the Steroid era.

As valuable a player as Jeter has been to the team over that same time span which includes 7 World Series and 5 WS Championships, Rivera has to be the team MVP of the era -- or maybe the MLB MVP for that era.

[hifigator]

Let me be clear on one thing. This isn't suppose to be yet another anti-steroid thread. And I'm not trying to demonize those who used steroids. My point is simply that it is at least conspicuous that just a couple years after the steroid issue blew up and MLB started cracking down with serious penalties for testing positive, we see post-season pitching performances for the ages.

Tbird wrote:

Pedro Martinez' 1999 Postseason: 17IP, 0.00 ERA, 23 K, 0.67 WHIP

Greg Maddux's 1999 Postseason: 28IP, 2.25 ERA, 17 K, 1.29 WHIP

Curt Schilling 2001 Postseason: 48.1IP, 1.12 ERA, 56 K, 0.64 WHIP

Mike Hampton 2000 Postseason: 27.1IP, 2.96 ERA, 18 K, 1.28 WHIP

Roy Halladay 2010 Postseason: 22IP 2.45 ERA, 20 K, 0.77 WHIP



I'm not denying that there were tremendous post seasons in the past. My point is that to have this many truly masterpieces thrown by so many different pitchers in the same post season is strikingly unusual. Halladay, Oswalt, Lincecum, Lee, Wilson and ... what was his name, Matt Cain -- And we aren't even out of the Championship series yet.


Other thoughts:

1) Don't agree with Hifi. It's a trap


blah-blah

2) How do you know that Mike Mussina wasn't on steroids? How do you know that steroids didn't let him throw the ball harder, throw more innings, etc

I totally agree. I wasn't commenting on pitchers during the era, but rather now that steroids are "behind us."

3) How do you know that Halladay, Lee, CJ Wilson, Oswalt, Jonathon Sanchez, etc aren't on steroids?

I'm not naive, and I'm sure that there are still some trying to cut corners. But I think it's obvious that the widespread and rampant use of the 90s is behind us. There is a lot more testing and the suspensions are much more severe. To argue that we have steroids to the same degree that we did is absurd in my opinion. That being said, that doesn't prove that none of the guys you mentioned haven't somehow gotten away with it. Point taken.


4) No one knows how much of the offensive explosion was due to steroids. There are a lot of other factors that everyone forgets, such as smaller ball parks, smaller strike zones, harder baseballs, expansion, etc.

While there are certainly other factors, denying that steroids had a very significant impact on the sport is absurd. And the most obvious impacts were on the power numbers. It doesn't really matter exactly what percentage of the inflated numbers was because of steroids specifically, and what percentage was because of other factors. Still, I don't think anyone wants to try to defend the position that steroids were not a significant contributor to the numbers explosion.

[/i]

[TBird41]

Oct 22, 2010 16:46:43 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Let me be clear on one thing. This isn't suppose to be yet another anti-steroid thread. And I'm not trying to demonize those who used steroids. My point is simply that it is at least conspicuous that just a couple years after the steroid issue blew up and MLB started cracking down with serious penalties for testing positive, we see post-season pitching performances for the ages.

I didn't quote you because I wasn't responding to you. I don't care about the script you wrote for when you called into your local sports radio station. I was responding to Strummer. That's why I quoted him and not you.

[hifigator]

OK, I have no interest in making this a pi$$ing contest, and therefore have no interest in "winning" one.

Strummer responded to my original post, with his own thoughts which seemed to give different views which would still be consistent with my original suggestion. Whether you were specifically responding to one or the other of us, or even both for that matter, really doesn't matter. I think it's quite reasonable to understand that your comments were directed to the topic of discussion rather than an individual. That being said, I have come to expect as much, and as I mentioned to start these comments, I'm not interested in such a debate.

As for the views on the real discussion, I think I responded quite clearly. I don't deny that there could be other explanations for the baseball that we have seen recently. I also think that you bring up some good points. While I don't think they dispute anything I said, it is reasonable to think that alternative views could also be true. Only time will tell. If you would like to discuss the issue, please feel free. As I said at the beginning, this is only something I have been thinking about and as I think deeper, my theory is certainly reasonable. That is what discussion is for, right?

[hoyainspirit]

Oct 22, 2010 13:37:24 GMT -5 SirSaxa said:

Not sure how or if it relates to this thread, but for me the most amazing stats of all belong to Mariano Rivera - especially in the Post Season. His career, stretching from 1995 to today, he's pitched 132 Post season innings in 93 games, and has a 0.71 ERA, an 8-1 record, and 42 saves. He's given up 2 homers, 21 walks and has 109 K's. Oh... and 3 wild pitches. Much of that time, of course, was during the Steroid era.

As valuable a player as Jeter has been to the team over that same time span which includes 7 World Series and 5 WS Championships, Rivera has to be the team MVP of the era -- or maybe the MLB MVP for that era.

This! As much as I hate him(and the Yankees), Rivera's postseason success is a thing of beauty. That said, bye bye Yanks! See ya next year.

[EasyEd]

There's so much more greenhouse gases around today, it gets in the batter's eyes.

[hifigator]

Sir (and spirit), I meant to comment on your post but forgot. I totally agree on Rivera as well. The man is incredible. Even at what most would be a declining age, he is still among the best in the business. And the fact that he can be so successful, year in and year out against the best lineups in any given year is simply amazing. The fact that he does it with essentially 1 pitch is nothing short of remarkable. The batters know what's coming, and they still can't hit it. On a tangential note, doesn't that call into question many of the complaints people raise about their offense being "too predictable?" I know football and baseball are different sports, but just how much importance is there to knowing what the opponent is going to do as opposed to how well he/they execute?

ed, that was going to be my second theory