Did Roger Maris Use Steroids?

**Shek** · 01 Mar 10,, 01:32

Originally Posted by Freeloader

Elaborate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/op...cole.html?_r=1

A crude approach IMO, but nonetheless, a rather striking finding that HR production decreased while using "PEDs."

**Freeloader** · 03 Mar 10,, 04:26

Originally Posted by Shek

Ballplayers take HGH expecting better performance, but it doesn't provide anything. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Zero.

Ok. Talk to MLB then and tell them that. And the NFL and Olympic committee. They all disagree.

Bottomline, there's no distinctly observable boost in ARod's HR production that we wouldn't have expected from him simply physically maturing.

Notice the games played difference? McGwire's brother stated it (steroids) helped Mark play everyday. In ARod's first seven years with Seattle - he never played 162 games.

Three years in Texas - he played 162 twice, and 161 that last year. WE know he used in 2003. We do not know after that, but this all started hitting the fan a few years ago with greater intensity.

2008 and 2009 he played 138 games and 124 games. Looks suspicious.

Play more = hit more HR's = botched record books.

**Shek** · 03 Mar 10,, 12:01

Originally Posted by Freeloader

Ok. Talk to MLB then and tell them that. And the NFL and Olympic committee. They all disagree.

No they don't. The scientific evidence is that there's no performance enhancement. It's public relations to show fans their "serious" about PEDs (even though they aren't a PED, but only a D). It's to keep athletes away from potentially unsafe drugs. It's to keep athletes away from gateway drugs. In the end, it doesn't matter what a policy claims - it's what the scientific evidence says.

Channeling Robin Hanson on Growth Hormone Policy

Originally Posted by Freeloader

Notice the games played difference? McGwire's brother stated it (steroids) helped Mark play everyday. In ARod's first seven years with Seattle - he never played 162 games.

Three years in Texas - he played 162 twice, and 161 that last year. WE know he used in 2003. We do not know after that, but this all started hitting the fan a few years ago with greater intensity.

2008 and 2009 he played 138 games and 124 games. Looks suspicious.

Play more = hit more HR's = botched record books.

Of course, if you look at McGwire's "steroid years," he plays an average of 106 games a year. That's not strong evidence for your steroids = play more hypothesis, especially when you compare it to his 150 games/yr average prior to his steroid use. Mr. Juice himself (Canseco) averaged 131 games of playing. Still not strong evidence for your steroids = play more hypothesis.

Now, I'm not a doctor, but I'd ask you to explain how steroids would have helped ARod overcome the torn labrum in his hip and then surgery and played more in 2008/2009. I'd also reference his 161 games in 1998, his 162 games in 2005 (before his hip injury that would slow him down in 2008-9), and his average of 157 games as a Yankee before his hip injury. Again, a difference of a handful of games to me is statistical noise, especially in light of how other players played (much) more in their non-steroid years.

**Freeloader** · 08 Mar 10,, 01:58

Of course, if you look at McGwire's "steroid years," he plays an average of 106 games a year.

McGwire from 1993 to 1996 played in 27, 47, 104 and 130 games. From 1997 to 1999 with 97 being the year he was traded to St. Louis, he played 156. His next two years he played in 155 and 153. His HR's in his early career when he played a compariable 150 something games he hit a high of 49 HR's, then 32, 33, 39, 22 and 42 with about 150 games played each year. Three "questionable" years in St. Louis and he hits 58, 70 and 65. Not sure what you were looking at, but he played more games once again....and hit more HR's

While your angle of "steroids don't actually make one stronger in any way" (paraphrased) is interesting and well thought out, I'd be curious to know if there is any sources you know of anyone from any of those major sports, some Chairman or President or Commissioner, who feels steroids are not any form of performance gain at all.

Late reply, I know. Took the weekend off.

**Shek** · 09 Mar 10,, 01:01

Freeloader,

Here's a site that you should check out that looks at this topic:
Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball

Eric Walker is the author of this book,
Amazon.com: Sinister First Baseman (9780890873359): Eric Walker: Books, which is mentioned among the pioneers in sabermetrics in this book:
The Numbers Game: Baseball's ... - Google Books

I haven't read his book, but Schwarz's book is excellent if you want to learn some about the history of baseball and statistics. That doesn't necessarily make Walker an expert on steroids, but he is very good with the statistics and makes a pretty decent argument (although I'd disagree with him on the impact of expansion - it is still another piece to the puzzle - and wouldn't purport so much weight to a monocausal explanation using the ball as the single suspect).

**Shek** · 09 Mar 10,, 01:11

Originally Posted by Freeloader

McGwire from 1993 to 1996 played in 27, 47, 104 and 130 games. From 1997 to 1999 with 97 being the year he was traded to St. Louis, he played 156. His next two years he played in 155 and 153. His HR's in his early career when he played a compariable 150 something games he hit a high of 49 HR's, then 32, 33, 39, 22 and 42 with about 150 games played each year. Three "questionable" years in St. Louis and he hits 58, 70 and 65. Not sure what you were looking at, but he played more games once again....and hit more HR's

Re-read his press conference. He started using in 1993.

Originally Posted by Freeloader

While your angle of "steroids don't actually make one stronger in any way" (paraphrased) is interesting and well thought out, I'd be curious to know if there is any sources you know of anyone from any of those major sports, some Chairman or President or Commissioner, who feels steroids are not any form of performance gain at all.

The paraphrase is slightly off. The scientific evidence is mixed on strength, although it more often than not finds increased strength. However, that strength is disproportionately added to those muscles that do the least in providing power to the baseball swing. Thus, by the time you parse out any potential strength gain from the steroids (not to be confused with the strength gain from the intense training regimens these athletes undertook) and account for how that strength actually impacts distance, the results are negligible such that the names on the records book today for the top home run hitting seasons would still be the same.

As to what the league officials think, I don't find that they speak with authority. They may have more access than I to scientists that have studied the question at hand, in which case, I'd listen to the results of those scientists provided that their studies are peer reviewed and available for study. I think that Amazon.com: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game (9780393057652): Michael Lewis: Books is decent evidence that the conventional wisdom found in sports often isn't.

Originally Posted by Freeloader

Late reply, I know. Took the weekend off.

No sweat here. We all have lives to live, and besides, I feel a case of March Madness setting in anyways. It could be an epidemic

**Freeloader** · 11 Mar 10,, 02:09

I'll check out Amazon, books are usually cheap up there.

Waiting for the NFL draft more than anything myself. Want to see the Redskins draft some bloody OL for the right side of the line and a RB to replace the nearly done Portis.

**cdude** · 11 Mar 10,, 02:36

Originally Posted by Shek

Since age is an issue that you bring up, how is that this Olympic medalist at age 41 swam the fastest time of her life in the 50m, crushing the world record she had set at age 15?

Swimsuit, ask Phelps why he was beaten repeatedly by lesser swimmers in the World Championships last year, he will tell you.

**cdude** · 11 Mar 10,, 02:45

People should look into HR/AB, not just HR per season. I bet the HR/AB graph for Barry Bonds looks much more suspicious than the HR/season graph.

PED absolutely helps performance, it's science. Anyone saw Bonds play would know that, his OPS was ASTRONOMICAL toward the end of his career.

Now I found this on baseball-reference:

1988 NL 22.4 (9th)
1990 NL 15.7 (5th)
1991 NL 20.4 (10th)
1992 NL 13.9 (1st)
1993 NL 11.7 (1st)
1994 NL 10.6 (4th)
1995 NL 15.3 (5th)
1996 NL 12.3 (1st)
1997 NL 13.3 (3rd)
1998 NL 14.9 (8th)
1999 NL 10.4 (5th) BONDS started doping
2000 NL 9.8 (1st)
2001 NL 6.5 (1st)
2002 NL 8.8 (1st)
2003 NL 8.7 (1st)
2004 NL 8.3 (1st)
2006 NL 14.1 (9th)**
2007 NL 12.1 (3rd)**

What Big MAC took was not banned by the MLB at the time, so he should be voted in the Hall. Bonds, too. Because what he accomplished before doping.

**Shek** · 12 Mar 10,, 00:05

Originally Posted by cdude

PED absolutely helps performance, it's science.

Since it's science, please post the scientific paper that describes the controlled experiment that fails to reject the hypothesis that steroids absolutely helps home run performance.

**cdude** · 12 Mar 10,, 04:51

Originally Posted by Shek

Since it's science, please post the scientific paper that describes the controlled experiment that fails to reject the hypothesis that steroids absolutely helps home run performance.

Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and East Germany

You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, though.

**Shek** · 12 Mar 10,, 11:27

Originally Posted by cdude

Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Barry Bonds and East Germany

You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe, though.

You made a very specific claim that it was science. The reality is that there are no controlled experiments, so all that exists are hypotheses that are untested, or beliefs, to include yours.

In examining ARod, his performance on steroids is no different than what we would have expected if he had not taken steroids. In other words, using the scientific method (but not a controlled experiment), there is evidence that steroids does not impact home run hitting, or if it does, it is extremely insignificant.

**cdude** · 12 Mar 10,, 20:31

Originally Posted by Shek

You made a very specific claim that it was science. The reality is that there are no controlled experiments, so all that exists are hypotheses that are untested, or beliefs, to include yours.

In examining ARod, his performance on steroids is no different than what we would have expected if he had not taken steroids. In other words, using the scientific method (but not a controlled experiment), there is evidence that steroids does not impact home run hitting, or if it does, it is extremely insignificant.

That's ONE data point, bro

At least I gave you four.

**Shek** · 13 Mar 10,, 00:31

Originally Posted by cdude

That's ONE data point, bro

At least I gave you four.

No, you gave me one. The other folks weren't baseball players. Besides, you didn't provide any causal data - all you've got is correlation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/op...cole.html?_r=2

For the 48 batters we studied, the average change in home runs per year “before” and “after” was a decrease of 0.246.

Please explain for me why the average change in home runs for PED users was negative, i.e., these PED users on average saw their home run output decrease while using?

**cdude** · 13 Mar 10,, 05:36

Oh, you are talking about baseball exclusively.

David Ortiz, Brett Boone are two obvious ones, with huge HR/AB gains after doping.

And to explain the decrease, most dopers started doping at the late stage of their careers. Jose Conseco started doping at a very early age of his career, so we would never know what his natural production level would have been had he not taken PEDs. But he has had a pretty good track record on the PED issue in the MLB. So I took his words that PED helps hitting home runs. And also the BALCO guy who's a scientist, now that's the scientific evidence you are looking for.

Originally Posted by Shek

No, you gave me one. The other folks weren't baseball players. Besides, you didn't provide any causal data - all you've got is correlation.

Please explain for me why the average change in home runs for PED users was negative, i.e., these PED users on average saw their home run output decrease while using?