Without a doubt, I think the use of steroids can help the production of baseball players, mainly because of the increased ability of users to recover from injuries and fatigue. But to the extent that they turn a twenty homerun hitter into a thirty or thirty-five homerun hitter...I'm skeptical.
In my opinion, when trends are observed in sports -- or in life for that matter -- they are often due to a combination of factors rather than just one. To look at another sport for a moment, golf is in the midst of its own "power struggle" as players are hitting the golf ball farther and farther (sound familiar?). Nearly everyone is quick to point to improved equipment technology as the culprit. Undoubtedly, hotter golf balls and lighter and harder drivers are a big part of it, but to discount the improved agronomy, better understanding of the modern golf swing, and the improved strength and conditioning of players on the PGA Tour is foolhardy. In a similar vein, yes, steroids have been part of the recent offensive explosion in baseball, but to think that this effect is occurring in a vacuum is a train of thought that lacks perspective.
Yesterday, Ken Rosenthal of The Sporting News/FoxSports.com spilled some binary ink on this same idea, cautioning baseball fans not to count on offensive output declining in the 2005 season now that steroid testing will be in place. Of the four reasons Rosenthal cites, his last two, improved conditioning and nutrition as well as rules that are slanted towards hitters, are the most critical in my opinion.
Certainly some of the added bulk we see in major leaguers is due to performance enhancing drugs, but not all of it. When I hear people observe, "Look at the size of him, you never saw players that big twenty years ago," I always want to reply, "No, we didn't, but we also didn't know what we know now about nutrition and conditioning." Go to the National Institute of Health's PubMed website and count how many articles have been published on the topic since 1985 and you will see that we've come a long way. Another method would be to go to Amazon.com and see how many books have been published on the topic since 1985. Similar results. A lot of results. One could argue, "Yes, but that same knowledge base is available to pitchers too," and they would be correct, but I would contend that hitting is a skill that benefits more from muscle bulk than pitching does, where flexibility is more of an asset.
Secondly, the rules and dynamics of the game have changed in the past twenty years. The most obvious example is the size of ballparks now as opposed to then. Not only is the average distance generally shorter from homeplate to the outfield walls than it was then, but in an effort to bring more fans closer to the players, there is much less foul ground. This means there are fewer easy pop-outs in foul ground, which means at-bats are longer which tires out pitchers quicker and allows bulked up batters an extra hack or two to get the ball over the (closer) outfield wall.
It is quite obvious that parks are smaller, but what is less obvious is the shrinkage of the strike zone. If a batter has a smaller area to cover with his eye and bat, he can make better judgments about what to swing and therefore he makes better contact when he does choose to swing. Yes, baseball has taken steps in the last few years to rectify the situation, and the strike zone does seem to be enlarging a bit, but there are other factors as well. Pitchers are essentially not allowed to pitch inside off the plate. If the do, they are warned of ejection. Other reasons include the lowering of the pitcher's mound following the 1968 season, American League teams making better use of the designated hitter, and the increased understanding of how to build an offense (yes that's right, sabermetrics is partly responsible).
Beginning with last season, ESPN.com began displaying home run rates on its main statistics page (see "Juice Box"). Even with the increased scrutiny on steroids in 2004, including some relatively benign random testing, home run rates increased over that of 2002 and 2003. Don't be surprised if we see a similar trend in 2005 because steroids are not the only reason for higher run totals in baseball.
