Can anyone calculate how much PED's add to a palyer's stats?

[kingjammy24]

rudy.

[Canseco44]

If anyone has read Canseco's 2nd book 'Vindicated' He has a very good section at the end of the book that does side by side comparisons of players when they were rookies and now. It is very much like you have done with their faces, but he did it with their whole bodies. Some of them were pretty interesting!

Todd

[KrAzY3]

I think this is a tough subject because a lot of information is not being released. If we had a fairly comprehensive list of players that took performance enhancers (and perhaps what enhancers) we could sit down and start to figure this out.

For my comparison I'm going to go with two guys I personally thought were using steroids, pretty much since the first news about rampant use set in.

#1: Roger Clemens
I had lengthy arguments about Roger using and my argument was a abnormal curve. He appears to fizzle out a bit as he nears his mid 30s (makes sense for a power pitcher) and then he finds new life in his mid 30s. Then, uncharacteristically he is able to carry his dominant pitching well into his 40s. With Roger, it didn't strike me that he did things he couldn't do otherwise. It was that he was able to do things he hadn't been able to do in years. I compare him to a pitcher like Greg Maddux and Greg appears to slow down in his mid 30s and then by his early 40s he is a run of the mill pitcher.

#2 Luis Gonzalez
I don't hear his name very often, ironically I have heard him as someone that should have won a MVP over a steroid user, but to me he's a perfect example of what a user would look like. Up until his 30s, Luis was a soft hitter. He never hit more than 15 home runs. Then, he puts on muscle and has a string of 20+ home run seasons that extend into his mid 30s. Including a 57 home run season. He was able to kind of fly under the radar doing this because everyone was hitting so many home runs, but why did no one stop to ask why a soft hitting skinny kid suddenly hits 57 home runs? Compared to a hitter like McGriff (it's almost a joke now to say he was one of baseball's greatest sluggers but up until people started hitting 50 left and right he was) Luis shows a highly abnormal career arch. McGriff's peak power years were prior to his 30s and while he showed power into his late 30s it was not out of line with any of his previous production.

I'm a bit biased as I am a Braves fan so my examples are former Braves players. I watched them the most so I feel I'm more aware of their players. The point is that guys like Roger (and in my opinion Luis) obviously gained significant advantages through the use of performance enhancers. On the other hand, imagine if Greg and Fred were not using (and I have seen nothing to indicate they have). Greg's performance is that much more awe inspiring since he was facing bulked up hitters. Likewise, was Fred a slugger on par with guys like Barry Bonds? If numbers prior to 30 were any indication Fred was pretty darn close to Barry. So, if those examples give you anything to work off of the performance spikes can be incredible. Compare Barry to Fred and see the differences later in their careers for yourself (remember Fred's power didn't go away, he just didn't start hitting everything out).

The impact might end up being something like a (few years back) Coors field effect. Put a hitter there and you saw his average and power numbers spike. A average guy might become a All-Star hitter. Likewise, put a good pitcher there and you might see his ERA jump a point, or if he reaches a crucial threshold he might fall apart altogether. I think that's a potential inverse image of what it might do for a pitcher. A guy who might be at the end of his career could return to form on steroids. It might take a guy back from the brink. Coors field production was always taken with a grain of salt. We knew they weren't that good and I think the same standard should be applied to steroid users.

[xpress34]

Coors field production was always taken with a grain of salt. We knew they weren't that good and I think the same standard should be applied to steroid users.

Sorry to go a bit OT here, but I have to address the above statement...

Yeah, you're right... that's why when Larry Walker left in 2004 and joined the Cardinals and went to the WS, he only LED the Cardinals in EVERY Offensive Category - because he wasn't that good.

Walker 04 WS line:

14 AB 5 Hits 2 2b 2 HR 2 R 3 RBI 2 BB 2 SO .357 BA

Pujols 04 WS line:

15 AB 5 Hits 2 2b 0 HR 1 R 0 RBI 1 BB 3 SO .333 BA

No one else on the cards hit above .250 for the series or had a HR and those guys got to play TWO of those games in their HOME Park where they had played 81 games of the season.

Holliday is still to be seen - he does have 4 HR and 20 RBI in 25 games - which projects to 25 / 130 away from Coors Field... BA is down due to an early slump but is rising and OBP SLG and OPS are all dowm mostly due to no other real bats in the line up - he has no real protection there.

He is the 1st Power Hitter to leave the Coors Field confines in his prime, so his next couple of years - not just this year alone - will tell alot about the 'Coors Field effect'.

And YES, I am a Rockies fan, but I am tired of hearing all the BS about Coors... the Humidor has leveled the place out and you think (like most people) that the Humidor is some kind of secret evil advantage for the Rox, let me know and I'll explain exactly what it does and why its here.

Logic dictates that ANY players stats SHOULD be skewered to his Home Park - hell, he plays 1/2 his games there!!! He should know every nuance, the batter;s eye, etc. He should be more relaxed and more comfortable hitting there than any other park... but, the pre-humidor years with shruken and hard baseballs flying out of the park made eevryone quit taking anything that is done there by a player seriously even though other parks are just as much 'band boxes'...

I mean (and this has to do with Steroid subject Barry Bonds) - AT&T Park was built FOR BARRY'S SWING so he could hit HRs there... but outside of the Steroid accusations, I didn't hear anyone claiming the AT&T factor in his surging HR totals...

Again, as always, just my .02... back to your regularly scheduled thread...

- Chris

[xpress34]

CLARIFICATION: (since we can't edit here)

Humidor statement should read 'IF you think like most people'... not simply 'You think...'

Not trying to put words in your mouth.

- Chris

[Nathan]

#2 Luis Gonzalez
I don't hear his name very often, ironically I have heard him as someone that should have won a MVP over a steroid user, but to me he's a perfect example of what a user would look like. Up until his 30s, Luis was a soft hitter. He never hit more than 15 home runs. Then, he puts on muscle and has a string of 20+ home run seasons that extend into his mid 30s. Including a 57 home run season. He was able to kind of fly under the radar doing this because everyone was hitting so many home runs, but why did no one stop to ask why a soft hitting skinny kid suddenly hits 57 home runs? Compared to a hitter like McGriff (it's almost a joke now to say he was one of baseball's greatest sluggers but up until people started hitting 50 left and right he was) Luis shows a highly abnormal career arch. McGriff's peak power years were prior to his 30s and while he showed power into his late 30s it was not out of line with any of his previous production.

I'm a bit biased as I am a Braves fan so my examples are former Braves players. I watched them the most so I feel I'm more aware of their players.

Sorry to chop so much out, but this is what I wanted to address.

We don't know much about Luis Gonzalez; namely, I don't believe there's actually been a careful and intensive study done on his career. I reference another former Brave: Hank Aaron. His numbers look incredibly consistent from one year to the next over his entire career, but it's really an illusion. Milwaukee County Stadium happened to cater (slightly) to his skill set, so he started his career off with a bang. They moved to Atlanta's Launching Pad, which catered more to his skill set, so he continued to produce at the same rate as he had before. Then when he started to decline, they made the famous adjustments after the 1968 season and his numbers went right back to normal.

The reason I mention this with Luis Gonzalez is because, in the absence of being able to carefully assess what exactly the ballparks did to him or for him, we can't really say one way or another. He played a good chunk of his career in the Astrodome, which would certainly have a detrimental effect on power numbers. He spent a year in Tiger Stadium, which would have a similar effect. He then went to Arizona, which would largely have a positive impact.

For another example, look at David Ortiz. When Boston signed him on Bill James' recommendation for $700,000 a year, the logic was this. He had so much power as a pull hitter that he could hit home runs to right field in Fenway (not an easy thing to do). If he went to the opposite field, a hard fly ball would still be a home run. His power has begun to decline a bit over the last two years, so he's not hitting as hard when he pulls but his timing is still good enough that he's not consistently going opposite field.

[kingjammy24]

If anyone has read Canseco's 2nd book 'Vindicated' He has a very good section at the end of the book that does side by side comparisons of players when they were rookies and now. It is very much like you have done with their faces, but he did it with their whole bodies. Some of them were pretty interesting!

Todd

on the flip side, no "growing, gigantic head syndrome" here:



rudy.

[Nathan]

If anyone has read Canseco's 2nd book 'Vindicated' He has a very good section at the end of the book that does side by side comparisons of players when they were rookies and now. It is very much like you have done with their faces, but he did it with their whole bodies. Some of them were pretty interesting!

Todd

If you want to examine for excess growth hormone, it would require a year-to-year analysis of the player's fingers and toes. The reason I say this is because the body needs calcium for muscle contractions, and as a result muscle tissue can add something called the sarcoplasmic reticulum to areas of heavy use. Someone that goes through grueling lifting workouts over an extended period of time can begin to take on a different appearance. Why? Because the tendency when lifting heavy objects is to clench the jaw and contract the muscles of the face.

Where you're sitting, act like you're picking something heavy up. You can feel the muscle protruding near where the jaw attaches to the skull. You can also feel it protruding in the temples, in the cheeks, and next to the eyes. Over a period of time, enough calcium is secreted that it starts depositing and increasing the density of the bone in those areas. Whereas someone may do a strenuous arm workout (where a particular muscle is worked x amount of times, then another muscle x amount of times, and so on), the face basically gets a workout the entire time.

On the other hand, someone whose toes become like sausages from age 25 to 35....that's another story.

[rj_lucas]

If you want to examine for excess growth hormone, it would require a year-to-year analysis of the player's fingers and toes. The reason I say this is because the body needs calcium for muscle contractions, and as a result muscle tissue can add something called the sarcoplasmic reticulum to areas of heavy use. Someone that goes through grueling lifting workouts over an extended period of time can begin to take on a different appearance. Why? Because the tendency when lifting heavy objects is to clench the jaw and contract the muscles of the face.

Where you're sitting, act like you're picking something heavy up. You can feel the muscle protruding near where the jaw attaches to the skull. You can also feel it protruding in the temples, in the cheeks, and next to the eyes. Over a period of time, enough calcium is secreted that it starts depositing and increasing the density of the bone in those areas. Whereas someone may do a strenuous arm workout (where a particular muscle is worked x amount of times, then another muscle x amount of times, and so on), the face basically gets a workout the entire time.

On the other hand, someone whose toes become like sausages from age 25 to 35....that's another story.

Very infomative post. I was going to say something similar in regards to Rudy's photo montage, but minus your knowledge of human physiology.

Comparing the heads of Ripken and Alomar's to those of McGwire and Bonds is simply not valid. The intense conditioning regimens of contemporary power hitters (including McGwire and Bonds) are well documented.

Putting aside for a moment the question of who used and who didn't, that level of conditioning will change the size of your neck and head, period.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com