Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

The Steroid Era - another look


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4 replies to this topic

#1 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,476 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:24 AM

From an April 26 article by Tom Verducci (http://sportsillustr...?sct=mlb_t12_a5):

"There is no doubt Jeter and Tejada are struggling enough that their managers will face questions about where they bat in the order and how many days of rest they should be afforded. But guess what: This is what life used to be like for 37-year-old middle infielders. All of us have to recalculate what should be expected of players as they age through their late 30s.
It's not just Jeter and Tejada. An entire class of players must be held to the kind of actuarial tables that were in place for years before steroids and PEDs came along. It's normal for players to slip as they age past 35. It was abnormal for players of that certain age to get better....

The Steroid Era tricked us into thinking players still could be impact players at this age. We're finding out how fraudulent that era was. The ban on amphetamines, in place since 2006, also could be taking a toll on older players, including how often they stay in the lineup....

Scoring is down five percent from last April, which was down six percent from the April before that. And much of the offense that has gone out of the game is because of the decline of the older player. Take a look at this: the batting statistics for 36-and-older players so far this year as compared to 2003, the last year players could use PEDs without any penalty:

Year - AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS
2011 - .240/.306/.349/.655
2003 - .265/.345/.425/.770

In 2003, there were seven 36-and-older qualifiers who posted an OPS of .800 or better. Last year there was one: [Hideki] Matsui. Teams have learned not to build rosters around older players and not to commit long-term money to them. The extensions for Troy Tulowitzki and Ryan Braun, for example, expire when they turn 35 and 36. Teams have begun to make the proper recalculations. Now the rest of us must do the same, and realize star players won't remain stars as long as they did in that tainted era."
- - -

Interesting stuff from Verducci. Look at those 2011 vs. 2003 numbers. Instead of looking at any particular individual, this looks at an entire group of players. It's tough to say any one particular person is doing steroids (without proof) or that there's 100% proof that PEDs actually increase one's OBP. But when you start looking at the bigger picture, this is pretty damning evidence that PEDs really did help players put up better numbers for longer.

#2 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16,887 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:29 AM

Is it that hard to put a story exclusively about steroids into the forum that we added exclusively because we were tired of steroid talk mucking up the MLB forum?

Apparently so.

(I have now moved it.)

#3 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 25,695 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 11:30 AM

Is Verducci really using the full 2003 season numbers and comparing them to one month's worth of 2011 numbers? For his sake I hope not.

#4 ivanvamp


  • one campus at a time..


  • 4,476 posts

Posted 05 May 2011 - 12:19 PM

Is it that hard to put a story exclusively about steroids into the forum that we added exclusively because we were tired of steroid talk mucking up the MLB forum?

Apparently so.

(I have now moved it.)


Sorry! I didn't realize that a separate forum existed for this. My bad.

#5 Sampo Gida

  • 3,136 posts

Posted 19 May 2011 - 10:05 PM

Interesting stuff from Verducci. Look at those 2011 vs. 2003 numbers. Instead of looking at any particular individual, this looks at an entire group of players. It's tough to say any one particular person is doing steroids (without proof) or that there's 100% proof that PEDs actually increase one's OBP. But when you start looking at the bigger picture, this is pretty damning evidence that PEDs really did help players put up better numbers for longer.


Age 36+ players in the AL playing 1569 games in 2010 had a 745 OPS. In 2003 age 36 + players played 1438 games and had a 764 OPS. Looking at ages 25 and younger, in 2010 such players had 16,500 PA and had a 699 OPS. In 2003 they had 19,100 PA and hit for a 731 OPS. So it seems whatever is going on is affecting young and old alike.

The fact there are fewer older players may have more to do with smaller market teams deciding they just would not spend money on them as they are more expensive than replacement players, and the additional 2-3 wins is not worth that much to them. Going to run prevention and emphasizing defense is simply a cheaper option for such teams, and younger no hit good glove players are cheaper than older 800+ OPS hitters.

Also, what about pitchers, they used steroids as frequently as hitters, why have we not seen a drop in velocity or an increase in injuries.

I am rather skeptical PED's have been eliminated, and even if they are, that PED's account for all of the sudden drop in offense that started in 2010 (in 2009 there was actually a 13% jump in HR from 2008 in the AL)

Edited by Sampo Gida, 19 May 2011 - 11:29 PM.