Asymmetrical Information

here is a list of the fastest pitchers recorded. I seem to recall reading somewhere there is a practical limit to the speed with which the human arm can throw a pitch, and that this limit is a function not of musculature, as your thesis would suggest, but rather of the skeletal design with which we are endowed.

It may be that steroid use allows pitchers to bulk up their legs but it would not be clear from this that they could throw any faster, even if most power is derived from the legs and torso.

See also a discussion here about the reliability of radar guns used to measure pitchers' throwing speed.

Most of the greatest pitchers of all time were NOT that big. Pitching seems to be mostly about leverage and control, not strength. So I'm not sure steroids tend to equalize things in this particular case.

And major league players hit lots of long fly ball outs that only need a few extra feet to be home runs. So you don't need much of a boost to make a big difference.

I don't think we can expect an equivilant benefit to both pitchers and hitters. That added mph for a pitcher isn't as important as the few extra feet is for a hitter. Also, I expect that the recuperative effect is more important for pitchers than any sheer muscle development. The toll of pitching is much harder on the body than hitting is.

I think the biggest impact steroids would have on pitchers would come from reduced healing time. There's a big dropoff in quality when your #1 starter goes out and the #6 guy has to enter the rotation. If the big gun comes back a week or two early, life's more difficult for opposing batters.

Pedro Martinez and Whitey Ford are both under 6 feet tall; all other Hall of Fame pitchers and future hall of fame pitchers are well over 6 feet. So the argument that good pitchers are not that big is a slight overstatement. They may not be extremely muscular in the way, say Schwarzzeneger was muscular. But they are definitely big men.

Few quarterbacks would want to see someone built like Clemens or Ryan running at them.

Alos, let's not forget the money that allows year round traiing for a particular skill. No working on loading docks, selling cars, farming or mining in the off season to afford to live.

I've been seeing this justification of BB's suspected cheating all over (especially today). The existence of 'roided up pitchers would only legitimize the HRs hit off of those 'roided up pitchers. I'll assume that at least a few pitchers that BB has faced have not been getting chemical assistance.

Just because it's baseball, doesn't mean you should stop thinking about the margins. You have no evidence about pitchers using steroids. You have no evidence about Bond's performance against these roid throwers in comparison to how others fared. But let's assume, for fun, that indeed it was true that he faced some pitchers whose skills had improved because of steroids. Question: did he still have an advantage, however so small, because of his steroid use? What if it is one more home run per year? If so, he's 16 or so short. Two a year and we're up to over 30. Andrew Jones of the Atlanta Braves made a similar point to yours. He said, even though everyone else was using steroids, no one else hit has many home runs. Granted. But the real question is: how many less would Bonds have hit? Did it give him an unfair advantage? I think the presumption should be against him. At the margins little chickadee. At the margins.

Baseball has know about steriods for years and the "purists" are only started complaining about when it became appearant that an a$$ was going to take the record. No one spoke up about steriods when the likeable McGuire and Sosa were chasing the single season record and the same circumstancial evidences was equally obvious for them as it is for Bonds.

The direct benefit of steroids is not adding muscle mass, it is aiding the speed at which damaged muscles fibers repair themselves. This can result in added muscle mass, due to the steroids allowing for more rigorous strength training, or it can simply result in an athlete, say a pitcher, being able to return to full strength more quickly after a draining competition. Steroids definitely aid pitchers, especially relief pitchers, who stress their muscles every day.

There is no doubt that Bonds faced pitchers who used steroids, but there really is no way to guess what the percentage was. However, there also is no doubt that Bonds faced pitchers who didn't use steroids, and forcing an athletic competitor to violate federal law in order to level the playing field is just wrong, even though I tend to think that steroid use should not be a matter for federal law.

In any case, comparing athletic performances across decades is a waste of time. Babe Ruth was most certainly the most dominant hitter of the era in which great athletes of African descent were not allowed to compete, Ted Williams was the most dominant hitter of the era which bridged the era of black players being excluded and then included, and Barry Bonds was the most dominant hitter of the era in which ball parks were smaller, possibly the balls were livelier, and definitely steroids were employed by Bonds and some percentage of other players.

What has been unfortunate to me about Bonds performance beyond steroid use is the body armor which he has been allowed to use. Not having to fear being plunked on the elbow by a 98 m.p.h fastball has allowed Bonds much greater leeway in crowding the plate, which makes the pitch on the outside corner much more easy to reach. The increased fast twitch muscle fibers from the steroid use makes the inside fastball easier to handle, and there is some suggestion now that the elbow brace also provides a mechanical aid to arm extension. Such equipment should be outlawed.

You may want to consider the dilution of top talent due to the expansion of teams in the league.

the quality of top players remain the same, but they are playing against many more players who are not quite as good.

My take on it is that if he took steroids, this helped his strength, his recovery time, the amount he could train...but hand speed, timing, coordination, and all the other subtleties of hitting cannot be improved by steroids. Remember, this is a guy, for the most part, who has also hit for average. Other than 2001, he never hit 50 in one year, something MacGwire and Sosa both did. Finally, he has always been a complete ballplayer: 7 time Golden Glove winner, stealing bases, plate discipline (most unintentional walks in history), and so on.

I don't pretend he is clean, but to me he broke the record.

BB probably used steroids, and broke the record. The Babe held the record, but he never had to face some of the best pitchers, many of whom were relegated to the Negro Leagues. Bonds now holds the record, but Hank Aaron is my man.

Hand speed is a by-product of fast twitch muscle fibers, and steroids definitely aids is the performance of fast twitch muscle fibers. Also, Human Growth Hormone has been shown to improve eyesight, and there is some circumstantial evidence, like increased shoe size, which indicates that Bonds may have used some variant of HGH as well.

Having said that, the guy was clearly a HOF-caliber player prior to the visible changes to his body. It just is undeniable, however, that his outrageous numbers, produced at an advanced age, were substantially aided by drugs, drugs that competitors would have been forced to violate federal law in using, if they wanted an even competition.

As far as my personal favorite, in terms of hitting, I have to lean towards Ted Williams. He lost about 5 years of his prime to military service, and still hit .316 with 29 homeruns in his last year, at age 42. Reporters hated him, but unlike Bonds, he never had a problem with his teammates. Aaron has been greatly underrated, however, as strange as that may sound.

What has been unfortunate to me about Bonds performance beyond steroid use is the body armor which he has been allowed to use. Not having to fear being plunked on the elbow by a 98 m.p.h fastball has allowed Bonds much greater leeway in crowding the plate, which makes the pitch on the outside corner much more easy to reach. The increased fast twitch muscle fibers from the steroid use makes the inside fastball easier to handle, and there is some suggestion now that the elbow brace also provides a mechanical aid to arm extension. Such equipment should be outlawed.

However it hasn't been outlawed, and nothing stops other batters from using it. I therefore can't really hold the use of armor against Bonds.

Actually, Peter, it has been outlawed, and for some unfathomable reason, Bonds' use of such equipment was grandfathered in. Actually, I'm pretty sure it is fathomable by consideration of the effect the players' union has had on mlb for the past thirty plus years. Free agency has been an unalloyed boon for the game, but many other things the union has done have been far less so. Demanding that Bonds' body armor be granfathered, minimizing suspensions after players have physically assaulted fans and media personnel, and other acts, have been things the union has done which have harmed baseball.

Also, Bonds' body armor was going to grandfathered in, it only would have been fair to allow pitchers to hit him, without Bonds being awarded first base.

Yes, I'm being facetious, but only to illustrate the ridiculous nature of allowing one player to use equipment that is prohibited to other hitters.

"if Bonds' body armor was going to be grandfathered....", of course.

You're (truly) a top-notch analyst, but I suspect you've wandered a bit too far outside of your circle of competence, here.

Also, Bonds' body armor was going to grandfathered in, it only would have been fair to allow pitchers to hit him, without Bonds being awarded first base.

Yes, I'm being facetious

That was similar to my proposed solution at the time, in complete seriousness. If you get hit on the body armor -- it's a strike.

Anyway, yet another apples-to-oranges point came up on Bonds' 415 foot double last night. He's a lefty hitting in a park with a huge distance to right field. Put him in a friendlier park and he'd be closing in on 856.

ATT field is only 309 feet down the right field line. It certainly is a more pitcher friendly park, but for a left handed pull hitter like Bonds, not excessively so. Now, if the righthanded Alex Rodriguez finishes his career as a Yankee, and ends up ahead of Bonds, I'd say that he faced more of a stadium handicap.

I'd also say Mays had more of a handicap in Candlestick than Bonds did at ATT.

I have no doubt that Bonds and others were using steroids during the 90s thru early this decade (and many likely still using various derivatives untested for at present), but, really, did this start in 1996 with the explosion in 50+/season homerun hitters? I, for one, still suspect that the leagues themselves juiced up the ball following the PR disaster of 1994.

Bonds the cybernetic machine.

It is arguments such as these that keep the beer and camraderie flowing among sports fans. I think you have to look at "best in his(her) era" because sport rules, etc. change. Jack best in his era, Tiger now, etc. Moving someone out of his era can be fun: how do you think the Babe would do today with a juiced ball, night games,
etc. if he just took care of his body? I'm betting a hundred hrs per year. Same things apply to, say, generals: how would Bobbie Lee have done in WWI, Patton in the Civil War?

Don't trust any stats or records after Aaron. Or call them enhanced records. The new batters are physical 'giants'. They power the ball over the wall. Aaron, in effect, 'threw' the ball with his bat. His technique is unmatched.

Here is an explanation as to why roids don't do much to improve pitch speed:

http://www.slate.com/id/2116402/

What about the people who play by the rules?

Ken Griffey, Jr has never been seriously accused of being on the juice. Even with his injuries, he is 15 home runs ahead of BB when Bonds was Jr's current age. Without the injuries, Jr would be looking at breaking Babe's record this year (using his career HR/AB stat) and Aaron's within two years.

Put him on the juice, and the injuries are drastically reduced/quicker healing time/eliminated altogether and Griff would be looking at breaking Oh's record right now.

Because some of the pitchers were juiced makes it OK for Bonds to juice it? Then what does that say about a Griffey or A-Rod, who face the same juiced pitchers without being juiced themselves? A-Rod does not seem to be as injury prone as Griffey is and barring an injury, he will catch Bonds.

Will~

Right on about the body armor. The other thing I noticed (being from Cincinnati) is the huge ball of tape that the mega-hitters put on the handle of their bats. Johnny Bench did basically the same thing years ago. During the week or so that he did that, he knocked the snot out of the ball. The pitchers complained, and he had to stop it.

Jane asks: "greatest hitter ever?" Maybe, maybe not -- but I think there's a good case to be made that he is the greatest all-around player ever. The telling statistic, for me, is 500 home runs and 500 stolen bases. Plus all those Gold Gloves. The only player who might have been greater, all-around, was Willie Mays; had he not lost years to the armed services, I think there'd be no doubt.

What is the effect of the ball of tape? Is it holding the bat together better?

To those (like me) who are unaware of the potential help of the elbow guard, check out the "cybernetic" link above. Remarkable.

i continue to marvel at the certainty so many people have about bonds and the alleged steroid use. i don't pretend to know one way or the other, but the best anyone of us has to go on is leaked grand jury testimony. grand jury testimony isn't admissable in a trial for the very specific reason that the same standard of evidence doesn't apply in those hearings. there's a lot of hearsay in "game of shadows" produced by a woman with a very specific bone to pick with bonds. is no one else skeptical of the testimony of an ex-mistress shopping a book deal?

further, none of what is in "game of shadows" has had to stand up to any real cross-examination. it may be entirely reliable, but until he has to face more scrutiny, i'm not investing my faith in it. the reflexive acceptance of the book and its claims is the same thing as accepting police testimony because they're cops. it's because people want to believe no one serving as an agent of public safety and integrity could be wrong, immmoral, unethical, or have and particular ax to grind with anyone. well, cops lie. and until the grand jury testimony and the balco records can be scrutinised, the authors of the book and self-appointed defenders of baseball's supposed morality and conscience don't get any extra leeway with me.

so you can think bonds is an a**hole living on the largest estate in narcissim city, but there is no incontrovertible proof that he took steroids. period. he's right when he says he's never failed a drug test. (quick aside, this is anecdotal, but the vast majority of the major and minor league players who have failed tests are pitchers, whatever value they may or may not be getting out of the banned substances. rafael palmiero and matt lawton are the only position players i can think of who have been suspended.)

bonds is just the convenient scapegoat for bud selig and the owners to avoid their participation in allowing PEDs to permeate the game. and it's easy because bonds has enforced an adversarial relationship with the press from his childhood. since they don't like him, there are very few baseball writers and sports columnists who can resist the temptation to allow their personal disdain for the man to slide into the easy assignment of blame.

until there is definitive proof that bonds cheated, i agree with his response last ngiht that this record is not tainted. he is the home run king fair and square right now.

sean, are you available for a game of Texas hold'em tonight?

My father was a lifetime babseball fan (got a tryout for the Cards), but I never was. Nevertheless, the one thing he impressed on me during a game we attended in Anaheim was that old man Rod Carew was likely to get on base (he did) while old man Reggie Jackson probably wouldn't (4 strikeouts as I recall). The homerun? Give dad a team full of boring singles hitters and he'd cream your exciting power hitter.

Here's an interesting set of stats:
http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2007/07/baseball_baseba_14.php

I think the furor over Bonds has multiple bases:
1) Overcompensation amongst the media for not having aggressively reported the growth in steroid use throughout the 1990s;
2) An aesthetic revulsion in the media towards big muscular guys hitting lots of home runs - being so different from the way the game was played when the members of the media were younger, it doesn't fit their idea of the way the game "should be" played (which is part of why they assume the entire impact of steroids on the game is in the increase in home runs);
3) Bonds' long-standing reputation as a lout generally and particularly to the media (with the latter, of course, being far more important);
4) Bonds' career path, plus the incredible detail unearthed by the authors of "Game of Shadows" as to his drug use, provides the most obvious example of "but-for" causation likely to be found outside of a double-blind lab study.

will, great response, and if you're in ny, yes. it's all about belief. i just don't believe anyone in this has the absolute truth in this. not that i've seen yet.

will, great response, and if you're in ny, yes. it's all about belief. i just don't believe anyone in this has the absolute truth. not that i've seen yet. least of all me. but i'll put BS meter to the test. you'll spot me the ante?

sean, absolute truths are few and far between in this Vale of Tears. However the preponderance of evidence overwhelmingly supports the assertion that Bonds has taken illegal performance enhancing drugs, and really has to abandon reason to conjecture that he hasn't. Is it possible he hasn't? Sure, just like it is possible I might get a royal flush in a game of five card stud.

To: Sean M

Why do you equate the grand jury with his ex-girlfriend. There was a lot more evidence than that, including testimony by bonds. I always loved how he claimed to rub flax seed oil on himself. Read the whole article.

SF Chronicle

I don't think many would call someone the "greatest hitter" on the basis of being the home-run king. An outstanding career batting average, combined with good power, would count more. That's why Ted Williams (.344 lifetime with 521 home runs) is a much better candidate for greatest hitter than Bonds. And Williams missed some of his potentially most productive years through military service. Not only did he hit .406 in 1941, but in 1957, at the age of 39, he led the league with a .388 average, and led the next year too, at age 40, with a .328 average.

There's a story about Williams being interviewed long after he had retired that goes something like this:
Interviewer: How do you think you'd do batting against today's pitchers?
Williams: Well, maybe I'd hit around .310.
Interviewer: Only .310? But you had a .344 career average!
Williams: Yes, but you have to remember: I'm 70 years old.

sean m,

That's an interesting pair of statements, that "there is no incontrovertible proof that he [Bonds] used steroids" AND that performancing enhancing drugs permeated the game. Of course, there is no "incontrovertible proof" that PEDs "permeated" the game. Most of the evidence is circumstantial or hearsay, and often comes from people with an ax to grind. But most of us who follow the game are pretty sure it's true. For the same reason, we're pretty sure that BB was good and juiced for a long time.

How many readers remember back before the blue dress, all the people who said there was no good evidence that Clinton had any sexual contact with Monica Lewinsky? That the case was all circumstantial, the people who pushed it were biased, etc., etc? All true. But any honest looking at the whole picture made you pretty sure Clinton had done something. And sure enough, the DNA analysis of the blue dress stain proved that he had indeed "had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lowinsly." We may never get proof about Bonds--but I'm pretty sure.

I honestly don't have much of an opinion here, but apparently the internet exists so that I can voice what little I have anyways.

Steroids or no, baseball is a very different game than it was "Back In The Day." Think of the improvements in (non-prohibited) medical technology and techniques alone in the last 50 years, or even in the thirty years since Hank Aaron set the record, especially the medicine available to multimillionaire athletes. Bonds' era is already significantly different from preceding ones, without steroids.

Also, Bonds, unless I'm mistaken, has yet to actually get caught cheating the rules of baseball. Did he? Probably, but thus far the burden of proof has been misleadingly assumed to be on his shoulders, and not those of his accusers (who, by the way, have a vested monetary interest in Bonds' guilt).

Bonds has certainly tainted his own reputation by (probably) cheating, and being a jerk no one likes, but he is still one of the best baseball players of all time.

I may offend a bit here, but isn't it possible that, given the opportunity and the same incentives as Bonds, Ruth or Mays or Aaron or whoever might also have "juiced?" I believe the answer is yes, but few would like to admit to it, not because it's not a useful thought (though it probably isn't), but because they like to hold the "old" records and players as hallowed. They like to think that things were different back when "real men" played the game. It's a sport, folks. Just a sport.

I think this whole story is funny. Bonds may have some legal and PR problems due to the accusations of steroid use, but he shouldn't have any with MLB. During the period of time in which he is accused of steroid use, they weren't banned from baseball. These guys didn't need designer steroids, they could have just got script.

The tape at the end of the bat changes the angle of your lead wrist when you're making contact with the ball. In Bench's case, the bat itself had a slight axe-handle shape, but the effect is the same. That angle is much more natural and less stressful than swinging a straight bat. Bench said that it was the most comfortable hitting he ever did.

Now, the league allows that and anyone can do it if they feel so inclined. So, I'm not saying that Bonds has an unfair advantage there.

My biggest bitch is those that say that others did it, too, (Steriods) so we should ignore it with Bonds. Yeah, others did. But some haven't, they followed the rules.

Gaylord Perry won 314 games in his career and is infamous for cheating. Tom Seaver won 311 with a spotless reputation. Who is the better pitcher?

d.cous, I've seen nothing in this thread that would lead one to conclude that people here don't want to admit that players from the past may have used steroids, had they the same incentives as Bonds and others. I have no doubt some would have.

What I find puzzling is that so many still are unable to state the obvious; that the chance that Bonds did not use illegal performance enhancing drugs is vanishingly small, and that a situation in which competitors must violate the law in order to avoid being put at a competitive disadvantage is not good for a sport or athletic competition.

No one spoke up about steriods when the likeable McGuire and Sosa were chasing the single season record and the same circumstancial evidences was equally obvious for them as it is for Bonds.

I heard it on the sports talk shows in Houston, during and immediately after.

Back during McGwire & Sosa, I think most sports fans (like me) assumed steroids were mostly chased out of the sport like with football during the early 80s. (Which doesn't mean no NFL players cheat, but it's a lot harder and riskier financially.) Also, it was quite controversial when it came out that McGwire used a supplement that, though it is not a steriod, the body converts it into a steroid after ingesting. I can't remember the name of the supplement, but it was later banned.

Re: pitchers roiding up - that may be so, but the it was home runs and scores that went up during the 90s, not no-hitters and lower ERAs.

Also, Bonds, unless I'm mistaken, has yet to actually get caught cheating the rules of baseball.

He has admitted to a grand jury that he took a substance (called "the clear") that he claims he thought was flaxseed oil but which was known to have been steroids. He may not have failed an MLB drug test, but he irrefutably admitted to ingesting steroids.

Furthermore, MLB still doesn't test for HGH, and a player was busted last year for being part of an HGH distribution ring. Bonds could be taking it right now and MLB will never know.

During the period of time in which he is accused of steroid use, they weren't banned from baseball

Neither was drunk driving or crack cocaine, but they're both illegal. So are steroids except for the treatment of certain medical conditions. Are you suggesting MLB has to innumerate all the illegal substances players aren't allowed to us?

(MLB is not innocent in this. They pointedly looked the other way, but the players union deserves most of the blame IMO.)

What has been unfortunate to me about Bonds performance beyond steroid use is the body armor which he has been allowed to use. Not having to fear being plunked on the elbow by a 98 m.p.h fastball has allowed Bonds much greater leeway in crowding the plate

This is absolutely true and underrated. Hank Aaron had to go up against Bob Gibson, one of the most fearsome pitchers ever. Also, during that period, pitchers were clearly more dominant, to the point that MLB lowered the mound in 1969 because pitchers' ERA had gotten too good.

Derek, allowing Bonds' body armor to be grandfathered, and then finding his power prodcution remarkable, is to me akin to allowing one pitcher complete leeway in doctoring the ball however he wishes, and then being agog that he sets era records. Yes, you need the talent to begin with, but I'd venture that if, say, Johann Santana could set a piece of emory cloth next to the rosin bag on the mound, and work on the ball with every pitch, the ditance bewteen his and other pitchers' performances would be even more pronounced.

I know that the link will offend the sensibilities of most of Jane's readers, (and possibly Jane herself), but Steve Sailer has a good analysis of Bonds and steroids, including interesting links to baseball stats sites which make it pretty clear when Bonds was and was not using steriods.

The upshot - Bonds without steroids would be one of the top ten players of all time. Bonds started taking steroids because almost nobody gave McGwire and Sosa a bad time for using steroids in 1998.

Good pitching, legendary, pitching is not simply a function of brute strength required to throw it fast and hard. Accuracy and placement matter just as much, if not more. If it was possible to throw a ball 250 mph, would that matter if you couldn't get it over the plate in the strike zone? You would just be the fastest pitcher on earth to walk a hitter. Or worse you would hit the hitter.

A good pitcher has to have much more in his repertoire than fastballs.

Also, Bonds has passed every steroid test that he has taken. People don't like him because he can be an a**hole, but that is a much different thing to being a cheater.

Derek, allowing Bonds' body armor to be grandfathered, and then finding his power prodcution remarkable, is to me akin to allowing one pitcher complete leeway in doctoring the ball however he wishes, and then being agog that he sets era records. Yes, you need the talent to begin with, but I'd venture that if, say, Johann Santana could set a piece of emory cloth next to the rosin bag on the mound, and work on the ball with every pitch, the ditance bewteen his and other pitchers' performances would be even more pronounced.

Actually, there was a period in baseball history when something just like that happened. When the spitball was banned by the majors in 1920, seventeen pitchers who were then in the majors and who used the spitball were permitted to continue using it, on the theory that they were dependent on the pitch for their livelihood. The last of these pitchers--Hall of Famer Burleigh Grimes--retired in 1934. A little-remembered footnote to this is that there were several excellent spitball pitchers who were in the minor leagues at the time of the ban who missed out on the grandfathering and were thus stuck in the minor leagues for the rest of their careers.

I'm not sure being able to throw a legal spitball/emery board ball would help Santana too much--his existing pitches are all topnotch. A pitcher with nasty hard breaking stuff to go along with a Grade A fastball doesn't need to cheat in that particular way.

Comments are Closed.